Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review/2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MADLAX

Madlax: First approach

I have been advised to specifically ask for original research to be pointed out, construction/copyedit help, and help with finding sources/interviews/studies. Thank you in advance. :) --Koveras ☭ 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this article looks amazing. I'm going to enjoy reviewing this :) Just as a note to kick things off though, the title needs to be decapped (as you have done in the Russian article I see. This standard is set at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." The issue has been discussed previously on such articles as Naruto and Bleach (manga). Anyways, I'll start actually reading the article now.--SeizureDog 20:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the associated pages, replaced the "special treatment" from the main one. Will request admins' assistance with its renaming as soon as I'm done copyediting. EDITED: Edited and renamed the rest, including this page. A request to rename categories has been made. - Kov
The cats have been renamed, too. --Koveras ☭ 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the abnormal use of italics for words such as Gazth-Sonika, Nafrece, Margaret Burton, Enfant, and girls-with-guns? They don't need them.
    • Agreed and done. - Kov
  • Comparitively, I'm not sure about the heavy use of bolding terms elsewhere in the article. It seems to work alright though.
    • Bolding is only applied to the central terms of a particular section. - Kov
  • Should remove comments concerning fansubs such as "In the early fansubs, the organization title was spelled "Anfan" or "Enfan" " Fansubs are technically copywrite violations and Wikipedia isn't suppose to support them and they are unofficial to begin with.
    • Done. It was there before I started working on the article, so I decided to keep it for a while. - Kov
  • In the Characters section: the Japanese romaji of the names needs to be capitalized. Same for any instance where the English word is also capitalized such as songs.
    • Done. It's just that Japanese transliterations are rarely capitalized in Russian... ^^; -Kov
  • Also for the Characters section: tighter images would be better. Half of the image is background in most of those images. This isn't must of a problem in the characters article, where the images can be bigger, but when they're small they don't offer much to see. Also consider finding a large group image that covers everyone.
  • Names mentioned in the characters section don't need to be linked to in the Plot Summary section.
    • Done. - Kov
  • I'm skipping the rest of the plot summary so I don't have it spoiled for me.
    • From which I deduce that you decided to watch it. Am I right? ^^ - Kov
      • Perhaps. I just never know what I'll watch, so I perfer to keep everything as unspoiled as I can. In your opinion though, which is better: Noir or Madlax? --SeizureDog 03:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Me, I think that even though Noir is great in itself, Madlax is way ahead of it in every aspect (except for the atmosphere, maybe) but apparently, there is only one other guy who thinks so, as well. Most people like Noir more than Madlax, yet none of them has ever written any FAs about it - go figure. ^^ --Koveras ☭ 08:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit worried about the references used. I don't mind it so much, but once it gets around FA time it's sure to come up that there isn't much variety in the sources used. Especially problematic is citing of episodes as references. Two things can be done to help this matter. One: Provide quotes where applicable. See Final Fantasy X for a good example of this tatic being used. And two: provide the times (minutes:seconds) where the events happen in the episodes of the DVD versions. E.g.: Madlax eps. 12 (13:34): Stuff happens. (in language) Publisher DVD.
    • I think it'll have to be the latter method, because in a story-driven anime like Madlax, moving any important quotes beyond the spoiler templates would result in a major spoiler itself. However, this part is gonna take some time and I don't know whether I manage to complete that over the week-end... -Kov
      • I have supplied the times and quotes where it was possible (in some cases, like the More Case, the whole episode/the majority of its scenes is taken as a reference). Please, check if there is some more timings needed. --Koveras ☭ 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Music section: Songs should be put in double quotes (" "), not italics.
    • Done. - Kov
Overall though, the article is looking really nice. I think it would pass for GA for sure as it is and could be FA with some tweaking.

--SeizureDog 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please strike out the suggestions you perceive as sufficiently applied? Because right now I keep wondering whether more work is needed. %) --Koveras ☭ 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madlax: Automated PR

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have applied the suggestions that weren't made by SeizureDog already and that I perceived as logical, with a few exceptions:
      • "The Bible" section should remain as it is IMO because the full title of the artbook is "MADLAX the Bible" therefore "the" in this context is not an article but a part of the title. Plus, this way, the page's URL looks like Madlax#The Bible mirroring the full name of the artbook.
      • I think, a native speaker of English would be much more qualified to remove weasel words and redundancies than me. This task requires much feel for the language... --Koveras ☭ 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all your comments and suggestions, but I have really had no time to implement them today. I'll start working on the article tomorrow afternoon, as soon as I get home from work... --Koveras ☭ 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to myself: check if Elenore's name is really spelled with the last "e" in the official translation... Also, write FU rationales on all images within the article. Plus, the references, of course. --Koveras ☭ 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madlax: Second approach

Impressive amount of work. I'll be honest that I haven't read the article in full, but there are a few things that caught my eye:

  • Per MOS, terms should not be in bold face unless there is a compelling reason (e.g.: it's a synonym for the article's title). Use of bold face is all right in the character section, but questionable elsewhere.
  • Is it really necessary to list more than a dozen weapons that exist in both the real and fictional worlds? Providing two or three in the prose itself would be sufficient.
    • Well, we did want to remove the list at first, but decided to keep it because it looked so damn pretty within a wikitable-class table. ^^ Anyway, the whole list is available on an external source, so I guess it'd be OK... --Koveras ☭ 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving on: I'm concerned about the reliance on the primary source for citations. While they seem to pass muster in game-related article, I don't see them much in literary, film and other television Featured Articles. Quoted dialog should certainly be cited directly, but people at FA seem to prefer that other character and plot elements come from secondary sources, or that there at least be a third-party character/plot summary that can be referenced. The philosophy seems to be that they don't want to have to watch the series to verify what the article recounts.
    • The problem is, that were the only reviews we were able to find thus far. Living in Germany, I have trouble finding any paper anime magazines in English, so it's very tricky. Plus, my acquaintances in the US can't find anything either. The closest thing I've found to a plot summary is in the AnimeOnDVD reviews, plus there is a fragmentary summary on TV.com. Take your pick. %)
    • As for quoting the exact passages, I'm afraid 75% of quotations would be spoiling the entire series. --Koveras ☭ 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a little too much detail in the Background and Terminology sections. What's important is less that these things exist in the series' world, but the effect they have on the characters and plot. At the very least, I'd consider merging those two sections, as their contents seem to be closely related.
    • While they do seem closely related, there is an important difference: Background is spoiler-free, whereas in Terminology, nearly every word is a major spoiler of the series. That's why we preferred to keep them separated. There is, however, a possibility to move them both to an extra article, though I'm not sure whether such things were done in the past... --Koveras ☭ 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work and good luck!--Monocrat 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I understand the desire to keep something pretty, but axing it would I think be for the best. :) Additionally, bunches of redlinks don't go over well at FAC, so you might want to unlink some of the voice actors' names. Anyway, finding citations and reviews is difficult, I know, but it must be done. (Trimming finer detail will reduce much of the burden.) A Google search for "madlax site:newtype-usa" shows that there were several articles about it in 2005. I think Nihonjoe has some resources relating to Newtype and Newtype-USA, so check his userpage. A search for "madlax review -buy" (the last one a feeble attempt to purge merchant websites) revealed the following: AnimeBoredom has a review signed with first and last name, so that buys it some credibility in my book; and AnimeNewsNetwork, which carries some authority in this genre, has at least one review of the series. Might I propose you check the places cited in Excel Saga for Madlax reviews?
More generally, my point, that I think went unstated, was that people at FAC seem to frown on even the appearance of heavy reliance on the primary source. I suspect you'd get one or two objections on that score as the article stands. In all honesty, though, I think you could dispense with most (or perhaps all) of the Background/Terminology sections and simply introduce the key points in the article's lead and in Character/Plot sections. Doing so would encourage an economy of detail, which I think would be appreciated at FAC. Short of that, combining them and placing the combined section under a spoiler-warning would I think make some sense, but I'll defer on that. I'll be honest and say that my suggestions have been contentious and usually disregarded in previous PRs and FACs, and you're of course under no obligation to do anything I propose. I had great success with a mostly unified synopsis instead of separate character and plot sections, but that was me. :)--Monocrat 21:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the first and last names that give resources credibility, I can provide most references with them. %) That AnimeBoredom review has very little value since it only reviews the first episode. As for ANN ones, all three of them are already used extensively within the article. :) I haven't found anything of interest on Nihonjoe's page, so yoleu'll have to help me there... Lastly, I have scanned every site cited in the Excel Saga article, but only found two new reviews of Madlax (the ones on AnimeBoredom).
Generally, I dislike the idea of removing anything, so I'd rather much prefer to have it moved to another article before trimming. :) --Koveras ☭ 13:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, full names buy credibility in my book, at least. :) Other editors have different standards. :) Good to hear about the ANN reviews. About the other review that you discounted, it might have some value in that it might illustrate the point that many viewers left before the series hit its stride.--Monocrat 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then, I'll start searching for the names right away. I've also got plans for trimming the background, terminology, and plot sections.... --Koveras ☭ 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffle!

I somewhat doubt that I can improve the article to Featured status, but I figured I should take it through a round of PR and see what everyone thinks is missing.--SeizureDog 08:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reception could do with some expansion. LuciferMorgan 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Azumanga Daioh

I would like people to comment on content value, general interest, out-universe and manual of style prose and anything else that the editors of this article have missed. --Squilibob 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After only a cursory reading:) Don't know if you've already dismissed these, but you can find some more DVD reviews at AnimeNewsNetwork, THEM Anime Reviews, and SciFi.com. On a larger note, I'm torn on my hobby-horse suggestion that plot and character sections be merged: there really isn't much of a plot per se in Azumanga, but at the same time, it seems like some discussion of story elements could be used to tease out character elements in a meaningful way. Perhaps an amalgam of Plot, Places, and Differences could lay the basis for a unified synopsis? At the very least, would it be possible to move most of the Character section to its own article per summary style? That character section is awfully long. Moving on. The biggest content-hole is production. The DVDs are worthless in that regard, but a Google search reveals that Newtype-USA did an article "Inside J.C. Staff" about animating Azumanga in Feb. 2004, and a whole slew of other bits around then. As it stands, I think combining "Title Origins" and "Hoax" sections would be a good first step towards a Production section. The hoax should also probably be mentioned in the lead. The screen-saver bit strikes me as unencyclopedic, and the dojin video game a borderline case. (I believe the language of that section's source is Spanish.) Cosmetic issues: I don't think character names should be italicized like they are in Plot and occasionally elsewhere; it might be better to have the episode-list link under Plot instead of its own section; since Ayamu is generally known as Osaka in the show, shouldn't that be her primary designation in Characters?--Monocrat 05:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you've been very thorough. I had omitted the ANN review on purpose as there are quite a few references to ANN in the article already and left out THEM as I haven't read that review. I like your idea of combining Plot, Places, and Differences though I'd probably make them subsections instead of joining them together somehow. If the character section is too long then it can be moved, though the main character's pages may make it a List of Azumanga characters page redundant or vice versa. I had seen that Newtype article on Newtype USA's website, but I don't subscribe to it and so I can't reference it at all. The Production section is a good idea and should happen. I had separated the unofficial games from the official games, knowing that they would come under scrutiny. I'll see what similar articles have done with that. I had also separated the screensaver thinking that if it were scrutinized then it could be removed easily, but another editor has referenced it now and I may see if it's worthy of keeping. I only just italicised Yomi and Osaka today thinking that the opposite would be said; they are nicknames and should be italicised while given names are not. Thanks for your input, seems like I have a lot to do. --Squilibob 05:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. I think Nihonjoe might have some resources relating to Newtype-USA, and if it comes to it, I have some access to most issues. One way to deal (i.e., defer problems) with the other media would be to convert the episode-list into a media=list. I'm fond of that option because it seemingly makes the episode-list itself more encyclopedic. I think, though, that the screensaver and game might eventually come under the axe. :)--Monocrat 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that may need to be done, although I think that the official games can stay as an excerpt from the List of Azumanga Daioh media article while the rest can be moved. Someone else may come along and add something from Newtype. --Squilibob 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider to the anime-manga world, I'll make general comments. First, the "Reception" section. It's in bullet form; paragraph style is preferable. Also, I don't know who the three people the article quotes are: Fred Patton, Chris Beveridge, Andrew Sheldon. A word about why readers should care how those three received it would be enlightening. And, there is no information about reception in Japan, so either renaming the section to indicate the contents, or broadening the coverage, would make title and subject matter match. Readers might be interested in knowing about reception in other parts of the world, too, if any information is available. Judging from the number of links to articles on Wikipedias in other languages, including a featured article, I'd guess there's something to say about it.
Names are sometimes in normal type, sometimes in italics, sometimes in quotation marks. This is puzzling.
Sentences with excessive explanation like "She loves cats, but for some strange reason cats always bite/scratch her - in particular, the grey one she calls Kami-neko (lit. God Cat/Biting Cat, depending on the kanji Or Gray-Cat / Spirit-Cat, for a more indirect translation)." really need editing. The entire expression in parentheses should be removed; we don't need a translation of a cat's name, nor do we need two, together with a discussion of the merits of each. Perhaps we don't even need its name. The slash expressions should also be removed. Wouldn't "She loves cats, but cats don't like her." be enough?
The name "Yuu Asakawa" is linked to an article with the title "Yu Asakawa" and the Japanese "Yū Asakawa." Wikipedia's style convention for Japan-related articles is the last. Likewise, "Doujin" links to the article "Dojin soft" which has the Japanese "Dōjin soft." The article uses Wikipedia style for Masumi Itō and some others.
The section "Differences between manga and anime" strikes me as trivial in comparison to the rest of the article. Why not remove the section and move the few interesting tidbits to other places in the article.
In "Places," the explanation of Chiyo Mihama's house "(in Japan a "mansion" is an apartment complex)" is out of place. The word is used several screens earlier.
An unofficial Japanese computer game has an English name, a Japanese name, a transliteration of the Japanese name, and an English nickname. This is a bit much for unofficial software. Why not move all the unnecessary stuff to the talk page. That way, it's easily accessible without interfering with the article.
The "See also" section with a single link to an article that a character uses in one episode should be removed.
These are one editor's opinions. I hope they help improve the article. Fg2 07:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fg2, I have taken Monocrat's and your suggestions and implemented them. I may just have to move the characters' section to a new article and summarize it. The unofficial games and screensaver may have to be omitted in future, if they cause problems with verifiability. --Squilibob 14:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided whether to rename the reception section or to try and find some Japanese reviews. This section isn't important until the article undergoes some sort of nomination and either way it will need to be expanded. --Squilibob 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Peer_review/2006&oldid=190448974"