Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 [1].

Naruto

[edit]
Nominator(s): 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader. 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The series is based on a one-shot manga by Kishimoto published in the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump." Wasn't it actually based on two one-shots? One simply named Naruto and the other that has Sasuke-look alike who even performs the Chidori (I think Karakuri was the name)
  • Avoid as many references as possible in the lead per guidelines
  • I would suggest mentioning at least in one sentence Boruto's series in the lead.
  • Remember to archive citations like citation 11.
  • For the first sentence of Conclusion, the year 2006 might fit there.
  • Before starting the plot section, I would suggest adding an intro like "the manga is divided in two 'parts'" so that newcomers understand it
  • Reference Masashi Kishimoto in reference 181 as well as other similar citations.
Good work. Now other things:
  • The Last: Naruto the Movie information lacks a reference unless the Boruto link already has it.
  • " ninth and the tenth Naruto films, as well as the original novel which was adapted into the eighth Naruto film" I'm a little lost since some films use the Shippuden subtitle whereas others like Blood Prison remove it. I suggest simply using the subtitle of the movie so that the reader will understand it.
  • Just wondering, but wasn't Neji Hyuga's cursed seal edited in the Western version of the series due its similarities with the Nazis? It could be used in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.
  • The 8th, 9th, and 10th films don't have the Shippuden part in the titles, and whether or not it was part of Shippuden production, it's redundant.
  • Do you have a reference for that?
Nope. Just wondering.
@Tintor2: -- 1989 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Gen. Quon

I'll try to do a bit more to look this over later, but right now, I see two (minor) things:

  • I believe that per MOS:DOUBLE, titles of citations that are in double-quote marks should have titles or quotes within them encapsulated with single-quote marks. For instance, in reference 18, Boruto should be in single-quotes since the title itself is encapsulated by double-quote marks. You might check other refs for this.
  • Just a minor point here. The Amazon links direct a reader to the Japanese version of the web store, ending with ".co.jp". It seems odd that the publisher is then identified as "Amazon.com", given that that's a 'different' url (I know that it's the same company, but it does remain that they are two separate marketplaces serving two different parts of the world). Perhaps in this case it would bee best to refer to the publisher as either just "Amazon", "Amazon.co.jp" (with a piped linked back to the Amazon.com Wiki article), or maybe "Amazon.com, Inc." to illustrate that the publisher is the parent company and not the US-based storefront. Against, this is just a suggestion more so than a thing that needs fixing.

Like I said, I'll try to look at this again.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed it.
  • I see where you're getting at, but all of the suggestions (except for Amazon since it's a disambiguation page) you had all redirect to Amazon.com, so IMO it would be a waste of time to do that. Fixed.
@Gen. Quon: -- 1989 19:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required, but are there any other images? It's a bit naked as is (But this is not going to prevent me from supporting this). For instance, perhaps you could put something in the Confucianism section?
  • I did a few "-" -> "endash" changes. Feel free to revert if need be.
  • The final sentence of the second paragraph of the subsection "Novels" (that was a mouthful!) is unsourced. This is an issue since the sentence before is sourced, and the two sentences convey very similar info (in other words, consistency).

Prose is great. Once the above points are addressed, I'm ready to support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added images in the past, and they have been removed, so I don't plan to add anymore images.
  • I added a source.
@Gen. Quon: -- 1989 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not sure the (ja) link to the Japanese Wikipedia next to the red link for Yukari Fujimoto is entirely necessary. I have never worked on an article like this before, but I think the red link is enough, and hopefully someone will make an article about it on the English Wikipedia in the future.
Other than that relatively minor note, I can support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in because it was recommended by WP:REDDEAL. People sometimes use those kinds of links to translate, and visiting her ja page and using translation software can give a bit more context. I think it should be restored. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ISD

Here are some issues I came across.

  • In the sentence: "He comments that the series was a comeback for dark fantasy that slowly faded away when Shonen Jump transferred to Ultra Jump in 1987", I think Shonen Jump and Ultra Jump should be in italics. Best make sure this style is constant throughout the article.
  • In the "General Roles" section, I noticed that you keep beginning sentences with the phrase: "She comments that". It might be worth altering this to make it a bit less repetitive.
  • In the "Novels" section, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the sequel light novel series of stories set after the end of the fourth great ninja war and beginning of Boruto (e.g. Kakashi's Story, Shikamaru's Story etc.). Reference to these books should be mentioned.

Once these are sorted out then I'm happy to support this article's promotion. ISD (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I now support this article's promotion to FA status. ISD (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by 122.108.141.214

Could you please change "Asashi", the given publisher in reference #16 to The Asahi Shimbun (with wikilink)? Sad to see the semi-protection has been restored. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in the gender roles section needs a good copyedit - there are several grammar issues with this section.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Would you be able to look it over whenever you get the chance? -- 1989 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor changes.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace "the characters has" with "Fujimoto argues that the work has", and "Because of the character development" needs a 'how'. Not sure what "when they are written to improve their status in the story," means. I would scratch "series has an outmoded gender role", and replace some of the 'shes' with Fujimoto. Not sure that 'politically incorrect' is the most neutral way of phrasing this idea, as 'political correctness' is considered a pejorative term. Is it 'an' Hokage, or 'a' Hokage? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the section. I placed the pejorative term in quotes due to that's what she said. -- 1989 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There still might be some other grammar issues that I haven't been able to see myself. Are there any other turns of phrase you've used from sources without using quotation marks? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- 1989 00:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"CdJapan" should be written as "CDJapan", because that's the orthography used on its About page. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" "JAPAN ANIMESONG COLLECTION SPECIAL 「Naruto -ナルト- 少年篇」" " needs an English translation for those few bits of Japanese at the end. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have English-language Japanese newspapers, such as those in Category:English-language newspapers published in Japan, been consulted at length? I note there are at least two articles from these newspapers being used - because Naruto was phenomenal, I'd expect there to be more. Library databases such as EBSCOhost or ProQuest can be helpful for chasing older articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Trove to identify further sources? Kliatt, Teacher Librarian, the Internet Bookwatch and the School Library Journal are quite well-regarded. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget EBSCOhost, either: I found this in-depth article which talks a lot about how Kishimoto's art style has changed: Spanjers, Rik. "NARUTO." Critical Survey of Graphic Novels: Manga, May 2013, pp. 215-221. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lkh&AN=88265667&site=ehost-live. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added -- 1989 14:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why only the Japanese and English language editions of Naruto are discussed? As the Anime News Network encyclopedia linked in the article indicates it was widely translated, it seems like a gap in coverage for other language editions to not be discussed at all (not even in the main list of chapters). --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including other editions won't show any improvement to the article imo. If you seem to think the opposite, what type of coverage should be told involving other countries? 1989 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue of comprehensiveness - 1c. Excluding these editions means the article is missing information, and it's yet another indicator of how well-regarded Naruto is, that it's been translated into many many other languages. Other featured articles, like Tokyo Mew Mew and School Rumble include information on non-English, non-Japanese editions of works. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. 1989 21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- 1989 10:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Can you please do the script-assisted thingie that makes dates in the 2009-01-08 format go into the January 8, 2009 format? When I added the trove sources to the further reading section, I lightly altered the citations from Trove's own recommendation, but didn't alter those. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- 1989 22:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article meet MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per MOS:BADITALICS, marking Japanese text in italics makes it hard to read. 1989 21:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BADITALICS would surely only cover the kanji, not the romanised forms of words (such as jinchuriki, etc.)? MOS:FOREIGNITALICS specifically uses some romanised Japanese words as examples. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. 1989 23:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - has this had enough depth of review? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Jaguar

I'll call out any issues as I see them:

  • "Masashi Kishimoto first created a one-shot of Naruto for the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump" - according to the source, it was a September issue, not August
  • I think you meant Summer, which I have fixed.
  • "Background art became less emphasised in favor of characters" - not related to a sourcing issue, but there's an inconsistent use of American and British English here
  • Fixed.
  • "For Part II he said that he attempted not to" - Part II needs to be linked here and not in the second paragraph of the characters section ("so he emphasized it more in Part II of the manga")
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 19 - shouldn't the publisher be Viz?
  • No. Since Crunchyroll wrote the article, they are the publisher.
  • "that Naruto is known as a shonen manga because the series is aimed at boys, and also because the series is characterized by moments of intense action in the story development" - I can't access the pdf file given in the source. Perhaps it would be best if the url is deleted
  • I didn't label the reference with the subscription notice. Fixed. I could send you the article if you want to verify.
  • "while the remaining eighty episodes are original episodes that use plot elements not seen in the original manga" - this is not mentioned in the source
  • I changed the reference.
  • "It included never-before-seen scenes and much non-canon material was cut to make it more faithful to the original manga. In addition, it contains openings and endings different from the original series." - this is unsourced
  • Removed.
  • "As a bonus, the short original video animation Konoha Annual Sports Festival was included with the Japanese release of the film" - I didn't see this part mentioned in the source, but to be fair, does it need to be sourced if it's a canon thing?
  • No, since it's already sourced above. I moved the reference to the first sentence.

Those were all of the discrepancies I could find, albeit minor. I checked all of the online sources I could access though the a lot of them were either offline or Japanese. It's a solid and well written article overall. JAGUAR  12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for addressing them so quickly. I'll support on the sourcing side of things. From what I've read the prose seems to be in good shape too, and has been further reinforced by the reviews left above. I did miss a couple of references because the links timed out, but I'm confident everything is in order. JAGUAR  17:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "It premiered across Japan on the terrestrial TV Tokyo and other TX Network stations on October 3, 2002. The first series lasted 220 episodes, as well as Naruto: Shippuden, a sequel to the original series with 500 episodes, that aired on February 15, 2007, and concluded on March 23, 2017." You give the last air date of the sequel but not of the original series; might as well be consistent. A couple of other points: "aired" seems wrong, since you mean "began airing" or "premiered"; and "as well as" implies that the sequel is included in the first series. How about: "It premiered across Japan on the terrestrial TV Tokyo and other TX Network stations on October 3, 2002. The first series lasted 220 episodes, ending on <date>, and was followed by Naruto: Shippuden, a sequel to the original series with 500 episodes, that aired on February 15, 2007, and concluded on March 23, 2017."?
  • "Naruto: Shippuden was first released by Viz in North America in September 2009. It was broadcast on Disney XD beginning in October of the same year": it sounds like the Disney XD broadcast was the first release in North America, so why does the previous sentence mention September?
  • Suggest glossing "jinchuriki", "jutsu", and "Sharingan" or with a footnote; nobody unfamiliar with the manga is going to have any idea what these are. I'd also suggest mentioning what a Tailed Beast is in the explanation of jinchuriki, since otherwise the reader doesn't know Nine-Tails is a Tailed Beast, which makes the kidnaps in Part II a little harder to explain.
  • "Orochimaru desires to acquire Sasuke due to his powerful genetic heritage, the Sharingan": I don't understand this, even after following the link. Does "acquire" mean "gain as a follower"?
  • "Akatsuki is successful in capturing seven of those creatures whose hosts are killed in the process": this makes it sound as though Akatsuki captures the Tailed Beasts directly. Shouldn't this be rephrased; he captures the hosts, and then extracts the Tailed Beasts, right? Or is there another capture step after the extraction?
  • I see some prose problems. Here are some example sentences and phrases that need work; generally these are clumsy rather than ungrammatical.
    • "He was originally working on Karakuri that he released to Shueisha in 1995 that got him an honorable mention in the Hop Step Award in 1996 when later on he was unsatisfied by the rough draft."
    • "which later formed into the manga series Naruto"
    • "devoted many panels of art to intricately display": "devoted" needs an "-ing" verb, so it would be "displaying", but it would probably be better to restructure the sentence.
    • "had him motivated": "motivated him" would be more natural.
    • "Kishimoto states.... Kishimoto stated..." in two consecutive sentences.
    • "he is proud of the work he put in the story, and is thankful that it made him become a manga artist in the beginning": "put into" is the usual way to say it, and "that it made him become" seems to have the sequence of events wrong -- writing the story is what turned him into an artist? Presumably this should say something like "it made him thankful that he became a manga artist".
The above is just from one very short section. A few more examples from later in the article:
  • "Since the series started serialization, Kishimoto decided the ending would feature a fight": I don't think "since" has the meaning you intend here; it's most naturally parsed as "because". I suspect you mean "After", or "Once".
  • "He wanted the fight to end with Naruto forgiving Sasuke similar to the time Naruto forgave Nagato"
  • "She comments that while the series' narrative shows that men and women demonstrate their skills in various ways, she criticizes how female characters are developed in a "politically incorrect" way."
  • "Cammie Allen, Viz's product manager, commented that, the main reason for the change was ..."
  • "and ran for 220 episodes until its conclusion on February 8, 2007.. The first 135 episodes are adapted from the first twenty-seven volumes of the manga, while the remaining eighty episodes are original episodes that use plot elements not seen in the original manga." 135 + 80 = 215, not 220; and you also need to be consistent in rendering numbers -- either 80 and 135 or give both in words.
  • "The series has adapted eleven films"
  • "Each of the three movies of the first anime series has a soundtrack that was released near its release date.": I can guess what's intended but this isn't the phrasing you need.
  • "Another fanbook was released to conmemmorate the series' 10th anniversary"
  • There's a missing quotemark somewhere in the sentence starting "He wanted each member to be...".
  • In several places -- e.g. in "Characters" and "Setting" -- there are one-, two-, or three-word quotes used as part of the explanations; I'd suggest paraphrasing to get rid of these. Using "convey the story" or "draw on" or "maybe" or "definitely not" as a quote shouldn't be necessary; there's nothing in these phrases that conveys anything that couldn't be equally well conveyed by a paraphrase.
  • I think you could lose a few of the more microscopic details. Do we really need to know Kishimoto's opinion of the computer architecture that might or might not be present but didn't actually show up in the manga?
  • You use "states" or "stated" a lot. I'd suggest using a less visible word; it's hard to overuse "say" and "said". They're more natural and the reader won't notice them as much.
  • "He does not consider the series to be a cheerful manga because of the way the characters and the environment were developed.": I don't follow this.
  • "Canonical to the franchise, the film tells the story of": I know what "canonical" means but I don't follow this.

Oppose on prose. The list of prose issues above is from reading the first section, plus glancing at the rest of the article; generally I skipped to the next section when I found something listed above, so I doubt this is an exhaustive list of issues. There are too many infelicities in the prose. Some of these can be fixed by straightforward copyediting, but some issues, such as paraphrasing, will take a bit more work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the copyedit and review. I'll resolve your issues above tomorrow. Would you be able to finish your prose review if I try to resolve the paraphrasing problem? Twofingered Typist told me he couldn't really understand it either when copyediting, and suggest that I use more quotes. Should that be the case? Also, how do you gloss something? 1989 20:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "gloss" is shorthand (it's the same root as glossary). I meant "explain or define in the article text". I will try to find time to revisit, but since I was just skimming after the first section I think the whole text needs going over, not just the points I identified. If you can find a copyeditor for whom the points I made all stand out as errors, you've got someone who will probably also find any remaining issues. After a copyedit, if the FAC is still open, ping me again. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist: Would you be able to do any further copyediting in your own free time? 1989 21:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: I'll see what I can do. You will have to fix any issues with the plots since I know nothing about them. It seems there are still an awful lot of edits continuing to be made on an article that ought to be mostly stable by now. This doesn't help the process. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article again and done what I can. Successive editors have added every possible detail to be found on the subject in some sections and this will likely be pointed out by the reviewer. You should certainly go through the article and keep only the essential details. (This is something of a vicious circle because I know someone else will drop by and add it all back in again.) I regret that I will not be able to spend any further time on Naruto or Naruto-related articles. Good luck.Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for doing what you could. @Mike Christie: Could you go over the article to see if your issues have been resolved? Him and I have done changes to the article to try to resolve what you said in your statements. -- 1989 19:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1989, just a note for future reference; when you deal with a list of points like this, it's helpful to the reviewer if you go through and add an indented note after each point that you deal with. If you're sure you've dealt with all the points, of course, there's no need to do so, but I just looked at the first point and that still seems to be an issue so I'm not sure if you've addressed everything yet. No need to do it now; this is just something to remember next time around.

Looking at some of the fixes:

  • "A jinchuriki is a human being in the Ninja World who has tailed beast inside of them. A tailed beast is a giant creature that contains a mass amount of chakra (energy) inside of their bodies." Should be "has a tailed beast", and you capitalize "Tailed Beast" elsewhere, so I'd be consistent. Plus "a mass amount" isn't very good English; I'd make this "a large amount" or something similar.
  • "A jutsu is also known as a skill or a technique involving supernatural abilities." I think this is also not quite right; a jutsu isn't known as a skill; it is a skill.
  • "The Sharingan is a special ability of the eye the Uchiha clan holds that can copy any type of jutsu, be able to see movements that are at a fast pace, and cast an illusion on its victim." Suggest changing "movements that are at a fast pace" to "rapid movements" or something more natural.

I haven't looked to see if the original points are fixed yet; I'm just skimming to see if I can find more prose issues.

  • "The first of the DVD compilations containing thirteen episodes, released by Viz was nominated at the American Anime Awards for best package design." The punctuation is wrong here; I think you want something like "The first DVD compilation released by Viz contained thirteen episodes; it was nominated at the American Anime Awards for best package design."
  • "derided the poor transition of his artistic style into animation": "transition" is the wrong word here. I think you meant "translation", but I suspect this would be better rephrased; perhaps something like "felt Kishimoto's artistic style translated poorly into animation".
  • Not really a prose issue, but "The series has received praise and criticism from several reviewers" is a poor lead sentence for a paragraph. Lead sentences should should give the reader an idea of what to expect; paragraphs in reception sections work best when there's some organizing principle determining what goes in what paragraph. This sentence is about as unspecific as it is possible to be.
  • "The start of Part II has been praised in a review by Casey Brienza of ANN. She noted how well the characters were developed as they had new appearances and abilities. Brienza also praised the balance between plot and action scenes allowing readers to enjoy the volume." This is wordy; it boils down to "Casey Brienza praised the start of Part II; she approved of the characters' new abilities and new appearance, and also liked the balance between plot and action." That cuts about 40% of the text without losing any meaning. The original is also vague; for example, what does "how well the characters were developed" mean? I took it to refer to the second half of the sentence, which means it's unnecessary, which is why I cut it. And why "has been praised", instead of just "praised"?
  • "It contains artwork was used for the Shonen Jump comic covers." Missing "that", I assume.

That's just from looking at the last couple of sections. I looked at the diff of Twofingered Typist's work, and they've definitely really improved the article, but if I can find the above in just a few minutes of glancing through, there's a lot left to do still. I'm afraid my oppose still stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to fix all of the issues you had above. I'll see if I can get further help with the prose. -- 1989 01:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't gone through to see if the above points are issued; instead I looked again to see if there were more prose issues I hadn't spotted first time through.

  • "The manga has been been nominated by several award shows, and won a few of them": it won awards; it didn't win award shows.
  • 'The cards are released in named sets, called "series" in the form of four different 50-card pre-constructed box sets.' Missing a closing parenthetical comma after '"series"'; I see one or two other comma errors elsewhere in the article.
  • "Viz has also published new novels known as Chapter Books written by Tracey West with illustrations from the manga." No reason to capitalize "chapter book", and no reason to say "novels known as"; I'd either make this "...published chapter books written by..." or "...published novels written by..."
  • "In July 2015, Lionsgate announced they are developing a live-action Naruto with Avi Arad producing through his production company Arad Productions, with Michael Gracey directing, while Erik Feig, Geoff Shaveitz and Kelly O'Malley will oversee production." This is clumsily phrased; for example, we have "...producing through his production company Arad Productions...".

Sorry, 1989, but if I can still find prose flaws this easily the article isn't ready. Again this is not from a careful read through; it's from glancing through the second half of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I'm trying to see if I can find further help with the prose. I'll resolve your comments tomorrow. -- 1989 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Could you take a look at the copyedits that I did, and let me know if it still needs fixing? -- 1989 20:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mike may not be able to get in touch right now. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's recently been a lot of passive voice sentence structures being reworked to the active voice. However, I'm not sure this is always a good thing - the use of the passive voice can indicate the fictitiousness of what's going on, such as 'the females developed' and 'the females were developed'. Similarly, I'm not sure that 'the DVDs released' is the proper way of putting it, but I can't articulate the why of it as confidently as I can with the earlier example. Can anyone give further advice on the voices in the article? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Reading now...copyediting as I go....

  • why not just write "host" rather than "Jinchuriki" ?
  • As a child, Naruto is isolated from the Konoha community, - if people are consciously rejecting him, then a verb like "shunned by" is better..
  • as Naruto takes place in a "Japanese fantasy world", - why in quotes? Can be reworded "fantasy setting" comes to mind....
  • ..since "there are still so many things that need to be resolved". - ditto, why not "due to the number of unresolved plotlines/storylines."
@Casliber: Fixed All -- 1989 12:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Do you plan on adding more comments soon, or is this it? -- 1989 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's heavy going. I've been busy and a need to do some relaxing stuff. I will have a look again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I get it, since this type of article isn't really your interest. If you don't plan to go any further or comment on the prose, then thanks for doing what you could. -- 1989 22:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Although we had a lot of early support here, Mike has found a few problems and Cas is also finding issues. Given this, I think continuing the FAC would be counterproductive and the work would be done better away from FAC. Therefore I am going to archive and would encourage the nominator to work with Mike and/or Cas to address the issues and then renominate after the usual two week waiting period. This would pretty much guarantee a far smoother run next time around. Sorry for any disappointment, I know it can be frustrating to be archived after a few supports, but the oppose is a convincing one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Naruto/archive2&oldid=1138467521"