Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

===Naruto===

Well written, no fancruft (unlike some), and rather accurate. I rest my case. The Gerg 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comments

1. "hyperactive" in the intro seems subjective to me
2. It says it "has been compared to those of Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball Z," - but who is comparing it, wikipedia :p?
3. Second paragraph in "Growth and popularity" seems totally needless - I'd say just link to the two sites it references
4. "Although many such groups stop once a series has been licensed" borders on original research without a source - also, it is very general much like the second paragraph in "Growth and popularity"
5. Numbers cited in "Manga and anime details" probably need to have at least one reference
6. "many" is used as a quantifier in "Toonami and YTV broadcast" - try using something more concrete, such as "most" or at least "some"
7. "It also appears that Cartoon Network made some extra edits in addition to those done by Viz Media, since some of the episodes that aired on the Canadian YTV network had fewer alterations" another thing that seems to be original research, perhaps you can source this as well
8. "Naruto has a large and colorful cast of characters, running a gamut of detailed histories and complex personalities " this seems POV to me...
9. The writing is kind of awkward towards the end of "Plot overview" - suggest tweaking

Well, erm, thats enough for me for right now I guess. Basically more references for the ending sections as well and the "story arcs" section is awfully listy. RN 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, something wikilinked in the article doesn't go in see also - I tried to clean up that but got reverted... RN 05:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that really a rule? I have found nothing about it in the MOS. Even the MOS itself does this. Jeltz talk 14:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Way too many lists, too few references. RyanGerbil10 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Could use more references. Also focuses too much on the fictional details. I'd like to see an anime as a FA, but the Naruto article just doesn't cut it yet. --Antrophica 05:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also Object. Needs more citations, has too many lists, and not enough on the historical details as Antrophica mentioned. Don't worry though, almost nothing is featured on the first nomination.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many lists and too few references per RyanGerbil10. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• ...

1. But the show is about a loud, hyperactive, adolescent Ninja named Naruto, who has the same name as the series. I think it's fine.
2. Fixed it. It now says "is compareable to" rather than "has been compared".
3. Agreed.
4. No comment (if we need a source, then let's search. If we absolutely can't find one, then should we just delete it?).
5. This is pretty much verifiable if someone counts the manga pages and episodes (time-consuming, I know).
6. Fixed. Only one mention at the beggining of paragraph 2. Replaced first mention with "a number of" and deleted the third entirely.
7. I reworded it, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient...
8. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to fix this. To me, it looks fine, as the statement is, in fact, true.
9. Tweaked.

Be sure to look at the article and decide whether or not the changes I made work. If you oppose the above, speak now, or forever hold you peace (I love ripping off lines, lol).

The Wretched

Learn how to spell please Wretch ;)

> #"hyperactive" in the intro seems subjective to me The description "loud, hyperactive, adolescent Ninja" is taken directly from the anime cartoon networkplease watch naruto vs saskaue and sea who wins if any questions ask me the krator abraham hermosillo send card to 1603 travion court and call 4259284