Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megatokyo/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Megatokyo

[edit]

The to do list is clear, and it looks like the objections from the first and second nominations have been dealt with. Therefore, I'm renominating this article. I think it's ready to be featured. --L33tminion (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Concerning the fair use criteria (criteria #3 and #8): Is it really necessary to add all 4 book covers? I think one is sufficient. Sijo Ripa 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (solved Sijo Ripa 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment: Concerning criteria #8, the extra covers do, in fact, "contribute significantly to the article." The section they reside in discusses them seperately, and thus the images serve to illustrate the section, instead of simply decorate it. Concerning criteria #3, one cover would be not be adequate, due to the fact that the section discusses all of the books. Having only one cover would not be comprehensive - a requirement of featured articles. JimmyBlackwing 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree. The covers by themselves add hardly anything in the first place (see criterium #8), let alone four of them. Furthermore "four" cannot be considered "as little as possible" and can be considered as "multiple images are used while one serves the purpose adequately" (see criterium #3). On the basis of this alone, I will object to FA status (even more because I don't feel really comfortable by the fact that besides these four, seven other possible-non-necessary images are used under the fair use rule cover.). Sijo Ripa 23:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the covers in the Books section. And on the subject of the other "possible-non-necessary" images, the first two are unquestionably necessary to detail the article. Not having an image in the lead's infobox would be failure to identify the subject of the article, and the image in the plot section details the comic's design, panel layout, and style - all necessary for the identification of the subject. The character images are needed to illustrate the comic's characters, which is necessary to comply with the standards set by other featured articles about comics - Calvin & Hobbes, and The Adventures of Tintin. JimmyBlackwing 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I didn't emphasize the rest up because it's more debatable and I give them the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think there was any doubt concerning the cover images so I'm glad that's solved now. By the way, note that older FA's (such as Calvin & Hobbes, and The Adventures of Tintin - two FA's of 2004) often violate some/many current FA standards, as the FA standards have risen over the years. Sijo Ripa 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article now contains only one cover image in that section, and I think it's safe to say that this concern has been addressed. --L33tminion (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment — The article's informative on the subject, mostly written well, and illustrated adequately. There's also a nice touch with the "Fan translations" box in the External links. However, there's a few issues I have with it, and some stylistic adjustments I have to suggest that I feel would improve the article:
    • Why the spoiler tag tornado? It's unnecessary — and aesthetically offensive — to add the "close" tag right before another "open" tag. Just remove the first "close" tag and the second "open" tag, place the first "open" tag before the table of contents", and leave the second "close" tag where it is
    • Navigation boxes generally should go at the bottom of an article
    • Discuss things in terms of what's already happened, as though the series is already over and done with. Don't treat it at as an on-going thing, even though it still is. Example: the sentence "However, this philosophy is starting to change, as he is spending more time with Kimiko and other women, and listening more to the advice of Seraphim, his 'conscience enforcement agent' and general friend" should be something like "However, this philosophy changes over time, as he spends more time with Kimiko and other women, and more frequently heeds the advice of Seraphim, his 'conscience enforcement agent' and general friend". "General friend" is kind of awkward wording, by the way. I'd suggest dropping that part
    • Some sentences are a mouthful, aren't correctly paced, are incorrectly punctuated or are just awkward. Examples:
      • "Piro finds work at a store called "Megagamers" that specializes in anime, manga and video games, while Largo takes on somewhat irregular jobs with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka, and teaching his students about L33t, games and hacking) for the duration of the early plot" ——— This sentence is mostly fine up to "... and teaching". From there, it becomes long-winded, awkward, and uses incorrect punctuation. Might I suggest this instead?: "Much of the early plot developments detail Piro beginning work at a store called 'Megagamers', which specializes in anime, manga and video games, while Largo takes on somewhat irregular jobs. Largo's work includes service with the "Tokyo Police Cataclysm Division" and as an English teacher at a local high school (becoming "Great Teacher Largo," a reference to the anime and manga Great Teacher Onizuka), where he teaches his students about L33t, games and hacking"
      • "Other plot threads include the character Nanasawa Kimiko's rise to idol status, due to her outburst on Mumu-chan's Voicevoice Paradise, a radio talk show, where she came to the defense of fanboys after being angered by Mumu's derisive comments about them, and the trials and consequences of it, as well as the enigmatic Tohya Miho's involvement with Piro and Largo - before meeting them in Japan, she knew them from a massively multi-player online role-playing game called Endgames " ——— Simply long-winded
      • "Piro and Largo grow as individuals as the series progresses, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they represented at first, and begin shaky relationships with women in their lives" ——— This is just worded awkwardly. Perhaps something like "As the series progresses, Piro and Largo begin shaky relationships with women they meet and grow as individuals, becoming deeper and more serious characters than the stereotypes they first represented" would be better
If these issues can be addressed, I'll throw my support behind the article. Ryu Kaze 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section does not yet stand as an independent encyclopedic article, like it should. Plot and character descriptions are anemic at best, and there's no mention of the critical reception. (You've got the NYT, so flaunt it!)
  • Strictly speaking, "Megatokyo" the term is not Japanese (just like "Indianapolis" is not Greek), so would it be possible to insert something like the following in the third paragraph? "For artistic and branding purposes, "Megatokyo" is also rendered as ~KANA~ on the website and some merchandise"?
  • Would this be better for the second sentence: "The Megatokyo content is usually published for free online every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Such content consists principally of the comic strips, although "Shirt Guy Dom" and "Dead Piro Days" are often published when a proper strip cannot be completed in time."
  • "Fantastical imagining of Tokyo" is somewhat redundant, and feels unencyclopedic. Perhaps "fictional version of Tokyo?"
  • Second paragraph, second sentence: How about, "Starting in the gag-a-day format, Megatokyo soon developed a more complex and coherent plot, exploring its characters, while still including frequent, subtler gags and jokes."
  • You mention that Caston's no longer with it, then that L33t has survived him, but you give no word of the tensions and controversy surrounding his departure. That's merits mention in the lead. The end of the second paragraph is ideal for mentioning why and when and with what results MT started changing.
  • I would also reformulate mention of L33t into a broader, if brief, discussion of cultural and artistic citations and allusions in MT. I know Gallagher discusses this in his "rants," or perhaps just in the commentary to the first print edition of vol. 1.
  • Comment."Plot and themes"/"Major characters": To be honest, I had so many problems with these sections that I merged them and gave them no small re-write, which I propose for your consideration. I think I retained the most important character details. I'm not married to this re-write, but I think it's suggestive of 1) the level of detail sufficient for a featured article, and 2) how plot and character details can be integrated. As it stands now, "Major characters" has too much detail (like Largo's working on computers in the nude, and it belabors Miho's gothiness). As I've stated before, it's my opinion that separate character and plot sections are difficult to achieve and allow extraneous detail to slip in.
  • I hope you'll be willing to compromise on this one. I think that a little redundancy is worth it in exchange for the clarity and ease of use that a "characters" section provides. Is there a way we can improve the prose in those two sections without merging them? --L33tminion (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certainly willing to withdraw the objection if the prose improves, and I've noticed your edits in that direction. The prose and lead are what led to the objection; the separate sections was (is) a strong matter of taste that got caught up in dealing with the prose. Since it's not a part of the objection, I've demoted this bit to a comment. (Apologies to everyone for all the sound and fury.)--Monocrat 21:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! That is darned reasonable of you. :D I think you've raised some compelling points about the seperate sections, by the way. I have some ideas about the necessity of the character snapshots, but I need to mull them around a bit before using them. Anyway, thanks for being so clear and so supportive this whole time. It's a breath of fresh air. --Masamage 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS-JA, Kimiko and Erika's names should be given in Western order.
  • The character image for Piro needs fuller copyright statements and sourcing to original image, and (am I right in thinking that) all images should explicitly name the copyright holder.
I stand by my talk-page statement that the article is ready for FAC. FA is another matter. I had hoped to wait a week or so to see if others picked up on these issues, but I got impatient. :) I hope to see the article bear a little star, but it's not quite there. I've been at this for several hours now; I just can't get to the other sections right now, but I fear they will need work.--Monocrat 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the majority of the issues you commented on have been taken care of. Unfortunately, Megatokyo's site is moving so unbelievably slowly that I was unable to find the source for that Piro image, and referencing an expansion of the discussion on L33t would have been a nearly impossible task - I'll take care of them once the site gets back up to speed.
Now, on to the main point. As far as your suggested merge of the two sections goes, I do not see the reason to do so. I understand that you were able to get an article (Excel Saga) to featured status while using the system - that's great. However, there is an incredibly large difference between a Webcomic and an anime. The closest things I had to model the article after were The Adventures of TinTin and Calvin and Hobbes. I'm not sure if it's an official policy, guideline or whatever, but general practice is modeling your article after what other articles that have been featured have done. Though the featured articles I named were both from 2004, defeaturing is something that exists for a reason - if these articles didn't deserve their positions, they would probably not be featured right now.
I examined your rewriting of the article to include the supersection, and honestly must say that if I stumbled upon this article undergoing FAC with that section, I would oppose it. I must once again bring up the fact that having no dedicated "characters" section was cited as a flaw in Megatokyo's most recent peer review - suggesting that the way you put forth may not necessarily be the right way to go about this (although perhaps not the inherently wrong way, either). Though the system may have worked for your article, it may not necessarily work here. Also, though the discussion of plot elements in the characters section may be inappropriate (I have removed these, I might add), discussions of the characters in the plot section is not a particularly large problem - the characters are an integral part of the plot, and as such also require separate, dedicated discussions in their own sections to do their complexities justice. The character section contains what you considered to be "too much detail"; however, is not the point of a character-based story its characters? As such, I would assume that some increase in the normal amount of detail would be normal. Like I touched on before - what may have worked for Excel Saga may not work here. It's something similar to modeling Jabba the Hutt after Final Fantasy X, or vice versa. I hope I have made my reasoning clear. JimmyBlackwing 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care of the smaller points. And I know how slow MT can be at times. On to the meat of the matter: Excel Saga is indeed an apt example because it was and still is a character-driven manga, if of a different genre, and the anime based on its was also character-driven. Not all suggestions from peer review are worthwhile in the long run. What matters is FAC. Regarding the level of detail in "Main characters," a proper understanding of Megatokyo can be conveyed without the following: "He is technically gifted, though he uses beer as a CPU coolant; and cannot pass up the opportunity to tamper with anything even remotely technological in nature, usually working on computer hardware in the nude, as an extreme measure to avoid electrostatic discharge." Why am I opposed to a separate (main) characters section?
  • We agree that the characters are integral to the plot, so why the false separation? It leads to commingling of information anyway, and ghettoizes the characters' personalities, rather than letting them be shown at liberty in the plot.
  • As it stands, you don't do the characters' complexities justice. Only a thorough reading and analysis can do them real justice. The purpose here is to give suggestions and overviews of their complexities.
  • Of the whole "Largo" subsection, only the third paragraph gives us anything that is interesting and new to the article; the rest is excessive detail or little more than repetition of details in "Plot."
  • The first paragraph of "Piro" is just a light expansion (really a rewording) of details in "Plot."
  • Kimiko's section would be complete simply by adding to the end of its first paragraph something like the following: "Like Piro, Kimiko is kind, soft-spoken, and lacks self-confidence, but she is mildly impulsive and prone to mood-swings. Also like Piro, her shyness and self-doubt cause her to keep her feelings secret."
  • Erika's could also be trimmed likewise.
  • Miho's section is a little wordy, but tolerable.
  • Notes about what language each character speaks isn't really necessary (also covered in "Plot").
  • This leads to roughly 380 (42.2%) of 900 words that can be cut for repetitious or excessive detail. At this point, "Main characters" hardly warrants its own section, let alone five subsections. A dedicated section for characters encourages this kind of fluff so that section seems full.
That is why I am opposed to a separate section. You might lose cherised details in this--I know the feeling--but the objective is to succinctly and logically present the characters. And I contend that this cannot be done with separate sections. However, it seems neither of us will back down from our respective positions. My proposed Synopsis was meant more to be suggestive. I hope, however, that it shows that I'm just trying to improve the article. :) As time permits, I'll scan the second half of the article. --Monocrat 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see where you're coming from, though it's difficult for me to just agree to doing it. The point is that your support of the article being featured is what is important - if making some sort of merge is necessary for that, then I will see what I can do. On one final note, I meant the peer review example as more of something to show that your viewpoint on characters sections is contested by more than just myself. JimmyBlackwing 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps I'm being unreasonable, and I want very much to be reasonable. What's important is not a solitary oppose (which can often be disregarded in the final tally), but engaging in dialogue to improve the article. And I thank you for that. At the very least, I am a minority view--so I wouldn't rush to make the merger yet. I've asked for thoughts on my view, so we'll see. You've got a while left in the nom, so pending more discussion, I'll suspend this whole plot/character concern for the time being. But the prose still needs work. :)--Monocrat 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note on the combined plot/characters section: that's actually far more intimidating. When I'm presented with several small, discrete topics, I unconsciously find it friendly and intuitive. When I looked at your Synopsis section, it was so long that I didn't want to read it. I tend to imagine that someone who looks up MT in an encyclopedia rather than reading is someone who doesn't want to get involved in a long narrative, and wants quick facts. These seperate sections can be read individually without lack of understanding; your Synopsis requires reading the entire thing. --Masamage 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Masamage. Well put. --L33tminion (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize about long sections. The proposal was mostly suggestive, but I've inserted some headings. Better? :)--Monocrat 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enormously! I think I still prefer the way it is currently (for reasons I'm unclear on), but that made a gigantic difference. --Masamage 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, violates fair use criterion #3. Eight "fair use" images in only 40k of text is about six or seven too many. User:Angr 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair use is not a text/article ratio (Final Fantasy VI is 55kb with 14 fair use images), it is a matter of necessity and availability; all images are required for their various purposes, and by virtue of being a commercial work, no free images could ever be substituted. Nifboy 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's just a matter of necessity, then eight "fair use" images are eight too many. None of these images is necessary; but having one or two is tolerable. User:Angr 09:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Going by this, it would be logical to de-feature nearly every single featured article on popular culture. The images are used for the identification of the subject matter, and the illustration of sections which discuss related elements. Though it may not be absolutely necessary to have them, it is far and away standard procedure when it comes to articles like these. I do not understand why this article, out of all the others, is so wrong in doing this. JimmyBlackwing 10:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I've singled this article out. Indeed, it would be best to de-feature all articles containing unnecessary fair-use images, and not to promote any new ones. But since Wikipedia's fair-use policy is roundly ignored here at FAC, I'm trying to increase its visibility the only way I know how: by opposing any article that violates it. You cannot steal a bunch of images from someone who has worked hard and/or paid a lot of money for them, put them into a Wikipedia article, and then try to get that article called one of Wikipedia's best. It's simply immoral. User:Angr 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm afraid I must bring up the fact that all you are doing is making a point. A far superior alternative to disrupting Wikipedia's business as usual to illustrate your point would be to discuss the guidelines in question on their respective talk pages. I am sorry if this came off as rude, but I just thought I should bring up the fact that you're trying to change a guideline by breaking another. JimmyBlackwing 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If Wikipedia's business as usual is promoting articles that violate policy to FA status, then include me out. I'm not objecting to these FACs to try to get policy changed, I'm objecting to them to try to get existing policy adhered to. That is not interrupting Wikipedia to make a point. User:Angr 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nowhere in the policy page you noted does it say that "fair use" images should not be used at all. The closest it comes is criterion #3, which you listed. However, "as little as possible" is completely subjective. While I might consider "as little as possible" to mean only using them to illustrate articles in significant ways, you might consider it to mean none at all, as you have shown. I do not see how it is particularly necessary of you to oppose every nomination made with images used under "fair use," in this case - it would be more productive to get the policy amended in order to make it clearer, so arguments over personal interpretations of the guidelines and policies would occur less often. JimmyBlackwing 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are we allowed to seek Fred Gallagher's permission? How would that work? --Masamage 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia can't use images "by permission" if that permission extends only to Wikipedia, but of course you can ask the artist to release some pictures under a free license such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA (or both simultaneously). User:Angr 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • User:Angr has added this objection to pretty much every FAC with fair use images. Really, it's a subjective matter that's being argued as though it has specific boundaries in this case. Personally, I think all of these objections are going to be dismissed by Raul on the basis that they seem to be more an attempt at "making an example" for the sake of individual fair use wikiphilosophy than an actual constructive comment. As long as you provide an explanation for why the image is being used that meets sourcing and licensing requirements, you're doing all you're supposed to with images.
Angr's objections have been a matter of discussion for fair use in general, not something that should be targeted at individual FACs. It's inconsiderate of fellow editors and the work that's been performed on them. Ryu Kaze 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Blackwing. To call this "stealing" is absurd. I find it hard to imagine that use of this type is costing the creators of such works even marginally. Second of all, stealing is illegal, and fair use rights are legally protected. IMO, either Angr is greatly exaggerating or their problem is with the current state of copyright law. --L33tminion (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on images: Personally, I think most of the images are fine from a fair use perspective. The cover of vol. 4 seems to be decoration in general, although it might have more value if moved up to the discussion of the Seraphim subplot. I would still cut it. Nevertheless, the use of an entire page of the comic seems inappropriate, especially since there's no discussion of that page, its content, or its place in the story. I would remove it post haste.--Monocrat 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the editors could add a line or two describing the style of art and presentation used? I can see an example page as a relevant illustration of concept under the right circumstances. It'd be a shame to lose such a valuable piece of imagery. Ryu Kaze 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It is used to illustrate the style in which the comic is put forth. If you just use single character images, then the layout could be like A Lesson is Learned but the Damage is Irreversible's or Penny Arcade's, for all the reader knows. It's definitely needed. I'll work on fixing that. JimmyBlackwing 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure, to be honest, that a few lines would be sufficient. First, can you easily discuss the page itself, which seems to me a requirement for fair use. Second, is it really necessary to have that image here: if someone is truly interested in seeing the layout and comparing it with manga or American comics, the MT website is just a scroll and click away. Plus, I find the image, as it is in the article and its own page, to be visually unappealing. On another note, and purely a matter of taste: have you considered using the image for the vol. 1 first edition in the infobox? It's a much nicer image, methinks, than the second edition. Anyway, I'm glad to see you're working on the images' copyright statements. :)--Monocrat 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a featured article's calling to be comprehensive - leaving out such an important detail as the layout of the comic would be a total failure to live up to this. Though the site may easily be accessed, the point is that it is something the article should cover itself. On the subject of the cover image, I had not considered it - I figured I would just leave the image as it was, since no one objected to it and I had no issue with it. Finally, I must say that yes, I should be able to find a way to discuss the image, though it may be difficult - I may need to replace it with a different strip for an easier time of it, on that note. JimmyBlackwing 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a strip, and you don't need to discuss a specific strip, to discuss the comic's layout. The actual comic is freely available if people have questions about it. By insisting on using an actual strip, I feel you make more work than necessary to achieve FA, and open yourself up to possible copyright violations. Your call. This is not an objection.--Monocrat 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I would object to the article being featured without an illustration of a strip (or at least an excerpt of a few panels). I would not consider the article to be well-illustrated without it. IMO, the current image doesn't even stray close to being a copyvio (it's one comic and it's clearly illustrative of the style of the work), and removing it would decrease the quality of the article. --L33tminion (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added some basic fair use rationale to the picture, but since the section that it is placed in is currently not relevant to it at all, I am having difficulty explaining how the image contributes significantly to the article. Could someone add some information to "Plot and themes" that is relevant to both the image and the plot/themes? Hargle 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will get on that right away. JimmyBlackwing 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I added a more specific rationale for that image, will that be sufficient? Hargle 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, L33tminion, one can't please all the people all the time. I stand by my comment--though I seem to be overruled on this--that the strip is unattractive in the article, and unnecessary both per se and for a discussion of the comic's layout. We're not talking about an Action Comics that exists only in library archives and personal collections. There is a freely available alternative for readers, the MT website itself. As for copyright... yes, it is just one of hundreds of pages from MT. But it was published and hence copyrighted as a stand-alone work of art, and the article uses all of it. That stretches my interpretation of fair use: character images are small compared to the whole work; a full page is large. As I said before, this is just a comment.--Monocrat 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any article on something online is going to be mostly information that's "only a click away"; I don't see why that should be unacceptable for the illustrations. Necessity is not a prerequisite for illustrative fair use. As far as whether the strip is "unattractive in the article" I guess our aesthetic sensibilities differ on that point, but if you've got suggestions for an alternate excerpt that illustrates layout and artistic style, I'd be happy to hear them. --L33tminion (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two questions for you, Monocrat. What did you have in mind when you said "I would also reformulate mention of L33t into a broader, if brief, discussion of cultural and artistic citations and allusions in MT. I know Gallagher discusses this in his "rants," or perhaps just in the commentary to the first print edition of vol. 1"? I would like confirmation before I make an attempt, in order to avoid serious error. Secondly, would you be opposed to the use of the first (1st edition) and fourth book covers in the Books section as an illustration of how Megatokyo's printed presentation has changed along with Gallagher's style, and the publishers he has gone with? I am curious about this before I completely cut the final cover. On one final note, it would be ever so kind of you to update your lists of issues you have with the article so the editors know what remains to be fixed - I myself have gotten kind of lost, at this point. JimmyBlackwing 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Good detailed article with ideal referencing. I was familiar with Megatokyo for a while and feel that this article is a good representation of it. The pictures are very well selected as well. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. This looks to be in good shape overall, and it does a good job explaining a comic which can itself can be tricky for the unaquainted to understand. I do have a couple of concerns, which I think shouldn't be too troublesome to fix:
    • First, the remark about "the infamous "Shirt Guy Dom" stick-figure strips" -- these are mentioned but not explained. Why are they infamous?
    • The use of Leet as a spoken language, I know, is a joke. But since the article refers to characters as "speaking" and "understanding" leet with various degrees of fluency, could you throw in a few sentences to make it a little more clear how Megatokyo uses leet? Are chracters speaking English leet, Japanese leet, or is leet considered a whole seperate language?
    • Lastly, I'm a bit concerned that some of the uses of Japanese terms, though commonly used in English-langauge anime and manga publications, do not need to be in Japanese. I'm fine with terms like shojo manga, which have no equal in english, but do we need to use the Japanese for terms like renai game ("dating sim"), seiyū ("voice actor"), dōjinshi ("self-published comics"), omake ("bonus"), and gosurori (redirects to "gothic lolita")? We're supposed to be writing for a general audience, and Megatokyo isn't even really Japanese, so I'm thinking these terms are likely to be a bit off-putting for non-specialists.

Other than that, really good work. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific, please? --Masamage 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ashibaka, I attempted to clean up this problem. [2] <- Is that along the lines of what you were looking for? JimmyBlackwing 18:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I recommend Googling Scholar and Print for more academic refs, currently most of them are from comic publisher, and the second largest group are newspaper reviews.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If at all possible, I would have already done so. The current references are used out of necessity - due to Megatokyo's webcomic nature, it's difficult to find refs that would be considered "academic." A search for "Megatokyo" in the sections of Google you suggested reveals nothing that would be useful as a reference. However, the sites used are all notable and reliable sources to some extent, even if not all on the level of reliability as, say, The New York Times or TIME. I do not believe there is a problem with using the current references, in this case. JimmyBlackwing 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A FA needs to have better sources, wether they're available or not. In a case where such sources are not available, such an article should not become a featured article. -- Ned Scott 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I would like the name order dispute on the talk page to be resolved before this makes FA. Frankly, I would rather Western order (per WP:MOS-JA and WP:Manga), or some very compelling rationale why we should make things more confusing for English readers ("Megatokyo does it" isn't a good enough reason), particularly because the general audience may or may not even see the tiny little note stating that names are in reverse order. Nifboy 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please note you are commenting on disputed naming conventions. "The fictional series in question uses that naming convention" seems like more than reasonable rational to use a naming convention to me (if the reader wishes to know about the naming convention, I believe Help:Japanese (the question mark) will help them... that and article phrasing should clue the reader in). Also: the italised comment at the top of the character section clearly spells out that japanese names are listed as Surname Givenname. -Aknorals 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per the name order dispute. FA are supposed to be the best of the best, and follow applicable guidelines. A great deal of editors to Japanese related articles don't like changing name order, but we do. I can understand if the editors here don't want to, and their reasons are the same as those who didn't want to change the order for JP names. The point of the guideline for western naming order wasn't supposed to single out Japanese topics specifically, but to have consistency for naming order across all articles. It wouldn't make sense to include the western naming order guideline in any place but WP:MOS-JA, but that's only because they didn't think of bizarre situations like this. This is just a small technicality, and it does not exclude this article from following established naming conventions. -- Ned Scott 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You opposed based on your interpretation of a guideline? I do not believe that is allowed. Please keep this disruptive debate all in one place (the WP:MOS-JA talk page). Thanks. JimmyBlackwing 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is perfectly kosher to oppose based on an article's not meeting applicable guidelines. Consider FF6's old FAC that sprung up an equally large discussion on the use of the game's logo in the infobox, when WP:CVG says to use boxart; most of the FF6 editors said the logo was better. What's there now that it's FA? Boxart. Nifboy 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • However this article is not applicable to MOS-JA. - See the discussion page. WhisperToMe 02:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, the ONLY reason it's in MOS-JA is because at the time it didn't make much sense to put it in a "general" naming convention. I don't think they thought about situations such as this. Not only that, but it's a work of fiction heavily using Japanese elements, saying it is totally excluded from MOS-JA is absurd. Again, can you tell me why other Japanese articles can't be excused for the same reasons you've provided for this article? -- Ned Scott 06:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm pulling out of this. I stand by what I said, in that something shouldn't be excluded from such naming conventions simply because it's not "Japanese" by technicality. Should it follow the western naming order? yes. Does it actually matter? no. For this article, I can't say it's a big deal. We have a label for the characters, and from that we can identify the characters. I really don't care what part of the name is the first or last, as long as I know who is being talked about. I got way too caught up in this, and I'm sorry for my knee-jerk reaction. While I'm not convinced enough to support, I do withdraw my oppose. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. This isn't so much ungrammatical or ambiguous as full of redundancies and awkward expressions. It's certainly not "compelling, even brilliant" prose as required. Please find good copy-editors to run through the whole text intensively: it needs to be tighter and stylish. I know several who are good at this kind of topic, and you probably do too. Let's look at just the opening paragraph, which is supposed to be a display.
    • "Megatokyo is a popular webcomic created by Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, though now written and illustrated solely by Gallagher."—Replace "though" with "and"?
      • I've replaced it with neither ("... created by Fred Gallagher and Rodney Caston, now written and illustrated solely by Gallagher"). I think that flows better without the "and", but either way it's an improvement over "though". Good suggestion, now fixed.
    • "Its writing and art styles"—bit ungainly; try "The styles of its writing and illustrations".
      • Fixed
    • "The contents and comic strip of Megatokyo"—category problem: the comic strip is part of the contents, isn't it?
      • Fixed
    • "with updates generally occurring every Monday, Wednesday and Friday"—Remove "occurring"; consider "generally on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays".
      • Fixed to "with regular updates on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday"
    • "are often published in their stead"—last three words archaic expression. ("in their place"? or just "instead"?)
      • Fixed
    • "Officially, Megatokyo is only available in English; unofficial translations into other languages are available elsewhere on the Internet, although the French and German translations are the only ones close to matching the original's update schedule." While not compulsory, it would be nicer as "is available only in English". Remove "into other languages". Remove "elsewhere". "Although" should only be used where the next clause is surprising or contradictory to what has just been said. Perhaps you need ", of which the French ...". Inset "that come" before "close". "The original's" is ungainly; try "the update schedule of the English version." Tony 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. By the way, you mentioned knowing editors who are good at copyediting this kind of topic? Would you mind giving me their names? JimmyBlackwing 06:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note on your talk page. Tony 08:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I'd just like to inject that I've performed an extensive copyedit of the article now, per JimmyBlackwing's request, and that a couple of other editors have been/are going over it as well. Hopefully this effort will resolve any concerns with the article's prose. Ryu Kaze 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Megatokyo/archive3&oldid=1138466741"