Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oh My Goddess!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oh My Goddess!

Self nom: I think article qualifies to be a FAC, there is always room for improvement but lack of suggetions in peer review suggests this is perfect. So hence a FAC. --Cool Cat ^Talk 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support -- Your images are all fair use, but that can't helped. More importanatly though, I didn't see a reference section. If you can get one or two references on the page you will have my full support. TomStar81 03:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Better as far as referances are concerned? --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unilateral Support -- Sorry about not getting back here sooner, collage work has started piling up again. Yes, thats much better, and it solves my objection. Good Luck (and by the look of things, you need alot of it 8-) TomStar81 07:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  • No references.
  • Most of the article is lists. Is is really necessary to have an episode listing and soundtrack listing?
  • No fair use rationale on any of the images.
  • The placement of the {{Spoken Wikipedia}} template looks pretty bad on this end. Is it supposed to be at the top like that?
  • It's also rather short when you look at it sans the list content. Is there anything about this anime besides the name and story that could be written about? Has it had an impact on anime in general? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It has been around for over a decade under diferent titles. I'll include those referances (so as not to make this original research, help is welcome :)). I am not sure where the spoken wikipedia template supposed to be at. People place it on diferent locations. So I am inclined to believe there isnt a rule. Where do you think it will look best? --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok both sountrack and epuside list tables are gone. --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, first with the breakdown of text to list ratio I would suggest that this might be better on featured lists or it needs the content restructured. Second the text that is there is fannish and the grammar needs work. The story section is the only substantive block of text and after reading it I only have a vague idea about the story of this anime, it reads like a confused review rather than a summary of the plot and presents fan opinion as fact and an example:

Belldandy is one of the most recognized characters in anime, (really?) and is considered the inspiration to dozens of demure magical characters (like whom?). The series is well-loved by fans for several reasons: its artwork is generally recognized as beautiful without any of the characters being victims of gratuitous fanservice, and the storylines balance screwball comedy with sweet romance that never gets saccharine (sounds like it came from a fan site rather than an encyclopedia).

--nixie 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not write it I merely added stuff, I need ideas to improve it ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Per all the above. Phils 09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I have itoduced shot summaries for each character. Also working on history asap. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article consists of an extremely brief lead, a story recap, a crufty naming discussion (only fans care about these kind of details) and then some lists of episodes, characters and songs from the soundtrack. It has virtually no information about how the subject relates to other anime, why it's popular, it's cultural influences, etc. This needs to go back to the drawing board and (hopefully) return with severly shortened lists, preferably none at all, much shorter story recap and a serious in-depth article. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how to expand the article in that direction without jumping into original research. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's okay to make observations of the obvious as long as you don't make subjective judgements. I'm sure you can find quotes made by the makers of the series about influences and such in interviews and the likes. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Pretty much agree with exactly what Peter said. The article lacks the depth of research needed for a FA. Two websites and two links to the sound track don't come close. FA's should be well written, meaning almost entirely prose. The lists need to be moved off to separte list articles and linked to in the appropriate place. Then replace them with prose reflecting what about the list is important to the topic. You say no comments in PR mean its perfect, but it also can be that people see the article has no chance to be a FA in the current state and don't want to be rude, or people just don't happen to get to that article. Either or both appear to be the case here. - Taxman ^Talk 14:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I realise that was wishfull thinking on my part. Take a look at the progress. I am rewriting most of the story section. I needed coments from people to improve the article that is all, if I can make it a FA in the process, its not a loss. Peer review is dead. :P --Cool Cat ^Talk 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Peer review is not dead, there are just not enough reviewers to get to all the listings and some don't get many comments. Some do though, if you look at the page. If you think peer review is dead, the real question is how many listings have you reviewed and offered suggestions on what it needs to be a FA? Of course, first you need to spend time knowing the criteria and how they are applied. Anyway keep improving the article, but FA status doesn't appear in the cards anytime soon. - Taxman ^Talk 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• What channel in Japan was it broadcast on? In what timeslot? What were the ratings and reviews like? Morwen - Talk 08:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent AIC version? TBS and affiliates, in post-midnight timeslot like most anime for older guys. [1] You want japanese reviews or english? The 'fan' reception was lukewarm, from where I'm sitting. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool. However I was saying the article should say that. This article is currently written from the point of view of a Western anime fan, which is not really appropriate for an international project. It needs more info about its original context. Morwen - Talk 16:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely, see comments below, but was replying here so coolcat and others had the answer with the question. Have dug up some interesting ratings stuff from Newtype too, page 159 of the 2005.07 issue, ratings table: 4.04-4.10 - 2.6; 4.11-4.17 - 2.4; 4.18-4.24 - 2.2; 4.25-5.01 - 1.9; 5.02-5.08 - 1.5. In perspective, lower than shounen stuff (Bleach gets between 3.8 and 4.7), and way less than the big hitters (Sazae-san 18.3-22.3), but on par for this kinda (post-midnight seinen) thing, Monster 's 2.5-3.6, Mahoraba 's 1.2-2.1. What's actually interesting is the huge tail off in viewers - supports my impression that there were a lot of very high expectations that weren't fulfilled by the slow meandering through the weaker early stories of the manga rather than skipping forward to where Fujishima gets up to speed. I'd be writing all this into the article rather than here... but there's nowhere to put it, execept under the dreaded 'plot' section. --zippedmartin 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how do you suggest we add that to the article? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. I sympathise that peer review got you nowhere, but this is the *last* anime article I'd want to hold up as a template of how to do things.

• Article needs a proper head. Take out the fallicy about it being a shōjo manga (it's in Afternoon ffs...) and then read Wikipedia:Lead_section - needs to be a summary of the article not a (misleading) definition.
• Manga cover pls (fair use), at the top. I can do this later propably.
• Something about the animators. Why is it all anime articles are giant plot summaries and lists of seiyuu and ep titles? ja:合田浩章 (Gōda Hiroaki) is a big part of this series and the article manages to not even mention him.
• Some kind of references for the few bits of the article that aren't plot summary or lists-of-stuff would be nice. And then hunt for more actual information to put in the article.
• The whole plot section. Write one summary common to the original and the adaptations there, a couple of paragraphs long, and relegate the rest to where it won't be frightening off poor readers who've only had a single sentence head to prepare them for pages of plot. Going straight from lead to Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow. is ridiculous, write the spoilers out of it.
• Other stuff. Lots of other stuff. Like, bug me on my talk if you need help on anything specific. --zippedmartin 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  I tried to answer to all of your points. The plot section is almost completely gone as this article has grown too large to be broken into smaller peices (its something about 66 additional articles now). Anything else you want done? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As much as I'd like to see this featured, it is far cry from FAC standards. The lead is too short, references are non-existing, Soundtracks is a stub section, Oh My Goddess! (TV) can probably have the episode summaries moved to the separate articles (and they are missing from 1x12 onward anyway). I'd like to see something more about how the series was invented and how it influenced other anime and international otaku fandom - it is, after all, one of the best well known anime/manga series. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  All done, thats 24 new articles for TV and 5 for ova plus one for the movie. Although this leaves little on the article. Recently added cast section. As much as I want to write about how this serries influenced anime and manga world, I sadly lack the knowlege to do so. You seem to know what you are talking about, I kindly ask you enlighted us. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  As much as I wish, I know little beyond the fact that it did. It seems to be one of the best well-known anime series - this should be described. I am sure some Googling would provide useful information, unfortunately, I don't have time to do so myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object it's far from what a FAC should be: Why is this manga important or popular ? How popular it is, anyway? Something like criticism or professional reviews, how it influenced the anime genre, etc. It currently just tells the plot. bogdan 15:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  I do not know why it is important. If I write criticism myself its going to be original research. I do not have any access to professional reviews. The reviews I have my hands on only explains the manga for a paragraph and those are comercial ones which just cover the first episodes plot. I can only write about things I know and knowlege I can acquire. Insisting on something I cannot acquire is wrong. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)