Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.


Contents

Strawberry Panic!

As the major contributor to this article, I want it to be the best it can be. It recently passed Good Article status, and I want to see if the article can be improved to Featured Article status, or at least A class before it can become an FA. Any comments on how to improve the article any more are welcome. --十八 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What other articles do you have that are about SP!? It's a bit hard to navigate between all of them atm, I think. WP:ANIME can give an A-class assessment for SP!. -Malkinann 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a Category: Strawberry Panic! which can facilitate the navigation, but other than that, there are these articles: List of Strawberry Panic! characters, List of Strawberry Panic! episodes, List of Strawberry Panic! albums, and Strawberry Panic! (short stories). I considered making a template, but there doesn't seem to be enough pages for that purpose.--十八 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
IMO, there are plenty of articles to make a template, but I do not think it is necessary. Each of those articles are referenced within Strawberry Panic! using the main article template. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have moved some of the lead into a history section. I think that the lead had already summarised the different media that SP has well enough and repeating it in detail required a new section. Parts of the writing reads more like a narrative or is review-like, such as Perhaps the main plot decive in the series revolves around the Etoile election. Why not just come out and say The main plot device is the Etoile election. Suggestive writing isn't encyclopedic. Other examples are The students may go and Their tasks generally consist of. Sentences that suggest that something may happen should be reworded to something more definite.
Some sentences like who attend this school should really be who attend the school or who attend St. Spica as I don't believe that relative clauses should be able to backwardly refer to the title of a section. St. Spica had not been mentioned in the text prior to referring to this. I don't know how strict FA writing should be, but any relative clauses in separate sentences is poor structure in my view. A sentence by itself should make sense and a sentence like Depending on the media type, the way in how this is featured varies.... does not. A reader has to read it in context for it to make sense. This is only my view and I'm by no means an expert so I have left the sentences alone. --Squilibob 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you expand the lead to comply with WP:LEAD. Articles of this size should at least have a 3 paragraph lead. Tarret 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The lead incorperated the History section just yesterday, and right now the lead cannot be expanded without inclusion of the information in history; seeing how we can't have it both ways (3/4 paragraph lead with history section), I'm going to movie History into the lead again.--十八 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ami Mizuno

This is an article about a fictional character in the Sailor Moon series. The Sailor Moon Wikiproject hopes to nominate the article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the near future. Main points: is it easy to understand for non-fans? Does it steer clear of WP:OR? Does it stray into cruftiness? Does it follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) enough? Does the 'profile' section read well? (It's been recently rewritten). Thanks. -Malkinann 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like Malkinann did a pretty good with most of those already. :) The only things that remain to be done of those suggestions are the lead (I've been putting some thought into that) and one musical song whose description just needs verification. Actually, I can get rid of that uncertainty just by snipping half a sentence. Okay! --Masamage 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Senshi powers" seems too crufty to me and "Music" seems out of place in a character article.
A poll of 586 votes doesn't seem credible enough to claim that she is "the most popular character in the series". I'm sure plenty of other polls of similar size have had any of the Sailors win.
The article quickly aquires an overly in-universe tone.
The "Profile" section contains too many overly trivial details. Do we really need to know that "Besides reading, Ami loves playing chess and swimming"? Tighten this up.--SeizureDog 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the perspective on the lists - I didn't realise how listy the article was until you pointed it out. We'll have a think about how to paragraph some of the lists. I'm unsure if we should remove the Senshi powers, as that would take away from the comprehensiveness of the article, but perhaps if we talked more generally about Ami's role in battle as the brains that'd be a solution? The poll seems to have had more than one thousand votes.. but we're looking for a better reference on that. I agree that it does seem in-universe in places... I'm not sure about your familiarity with Sailor Moon, but part of the appeal lies in the varied characters, ie. the dollbox statistics. If we tried to remove any of the statistics details, (swimming, blood type, school club) it'd come back so often it just wouldn't be funny. -Malkinann 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's true. People are constantly editing those parts. Even when the stats were in a list, folks came and added duplicates of the list. --Masamage 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well do try to do something about it. Right now it feels like an article that goes on and on about what Peter Parker's favorite foods and hobbies are, only to end with "oh yeah, he also happens to be Spider-Man". Seriously, compare "Profile" to "Aspects and forms". If you can find that much to say about her normal self, it seems like there should be more information (aside from an attack list) for her most important role.--SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that does put it in perspective. I've put up a section stub. Does the profile read better now that Masamage has tried to make it out of universe? -Malkinann 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Amen to Malkinann. Later this afternoon I'll see what I can do about expanding the Senshi section, and possibly providing more context for the statistics. It's true that right now they're like, "Yay the cute shy one likes sandwiches yay!" --Masamage 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Attacks section, I have just finished rewriting it as prose on a Project test page. Is it better? --Masamage 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Now it focuses on which attacks are important and not every single tiny one that might be used.--SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'm seeing what the Project people think about making it official. Thanks for the feedback! :) --Masamage 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If we changed the 'Music' section header to say 'Image songs', would that make it less incongruous? Or should it perhaps be prose-ified too, and made to include her poems and things as well? --Masamage 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
My point is that it's not really relevent. Information on image songs would be best served at its own article. e.g. List of Haruhi Suzumiya albums and Haruhi Suzumiya character song albums.--SeizureDog 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of them are pretty relevant. They appear in anime episodes, or they make statements about the character that aren't made so clearly anywhere else. (In at least one case we're using an image poem as a reference.) Anyway, most of the characters had multiple "single" albums, and there are many dozen larger albums covering at least a hundred SM songs, probably more. I shudder to think of cataloguing them all there are entire, enormous websites devoted to that. My feeling is that if it comes to cruft, this is definitely the least crufty way to handle the music, and if there's a lack of context for why the heck a music section exists, there probably should be more prose. --Masamage 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that's she has image songs is important for the average reader to know. Specificly which songs however, is not. Homer Simpson has also sang a number of songs throughout his series, but that doesn't mean he needs a section listing them. Just take "A number of image songs featuring Ami's character have been released.", stick it in the lead (which I just realized really needs to be expanded), and remove the rest.--SeizureDog 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done as you've suggested, saving the song list in the talk page - maybe if the songs are particularly relevant, they'll make their way back in as references? -Malkinann 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also had a go at expanding the lead, as in WP:LEAD - I'm not sure how sparklingly it reads, though. -Malkinann 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What next?

What should we do now? Have we achieved GA quality or no? How can we accomplish that if not? --Masamage 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We've expanded the section on Ami's "Sailor Mercury" role + lead and significantly expanded the section on her "Dark Sailor Mercury" role. Maybe the FU rationale for DSM needs work? If the peer review doesn't seem like we'll get any more comments, we can always request that it gets archived - although it seems that a FAC is an automatic out of the peer review system.. ;) -Malkinann 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I updated the FU rationale for DSM's image, which brings them all up-to-date except for the picture of Chisaki Hama in civilian clothes. I have no idea where that one comes from. Unless it's on the Oracle? I'll check that when I get home tonight. Anyway, I'm going to try and figure out if it's kosher to ask the main WP Anime talk page to come look over here. If it is, I'll try that and we can get some more insight before moving on. --Masamage 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know - I'd thought eternal-moon.org, but it doesn't seem to be there. Maybe we should swap it to one of her with glasses (cos we talk about her glasses a lot)??? -Malkinann 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I found it at the Oracle, but it seems to be just a modelling shot for Chisaka Hama, not a screenshot from the show. But here's a pretty good shot of Ami in glasses. --Masamage 21:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RahXephon

Presenting to the public before nominating for GAC. Please advise regarding format, out-of-universe perspective, prose, and comprehensivity. Thanksin advance for your advice and comments.--SidiLemine 16:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to move this towards FA rather than GA; it certainly is a topic and article large enough to warrant it. As a major contributor, I'll respond to feedback, starting with automated review. --GunnarRene 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Large article doesn't mean that it's automatically "featured"; point is that GA is a simpler process for smaller articles. --GunnarRene 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

Wikipedia:Peer review/RahXephon/Automated1

Automated review passed or adressed. Only point left is a visit from an experienced copy editor.--GunnarRene 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-automatic reviews

The article's really good, and you seem to have invested a lot into it, but it just seems to pull in a lot of directions. At first glance this is what I'd do, this is what seems sensible to me:

  • The "japanese culture" and "Civilizations and creation stories" could be combined into one. Both deal with ancient civilizations and beliefs present in the series, they have something in common. And you make mention of the Mesoamerican influences in the japanese section, so it makes sense.
    • Done. Thanks. Why didn't I see that. :-) --GunnarRene 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In the "Comparisons with other Anime," I'd recommend leaving Raideen (since the creators themselves admit the influence) and Evangelion (since everyone on the planet seems to think so). The stuff about Infinite Ryvius and "Other anime" seem inconsequential, so I'd suggest trimming that. Maybe the stuff about Host Club could be moved under "Legacy," as part of the series impact.
    • Done, undone, done. I'm leaving those that are sourced, since it shows that there were comparisons with many shows, not just two.--GunnarRene 21:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The stuff about "Visual arts" and "Music" could be combined also.
    • Done
  • You have a footnote that directs to a picture of a Mayan sculpture. Why not upload it, or look for one already uploaded? Have looked at commons and not found something similar, so linked to web page instead (I consider it a convenience link). Found an interesting bas-relief from Palenque though.
  • Some images are needed for the characters
    • The associated article List of RahXephon characters has images of all of the main characters; the link in the main article could be adjusted to note this, rather than adding more pics to the main article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Characters image done. (Copied from character list.) --GunnarRene 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need to divide the "Reception" in TV, movie and manga reviews.--Nohansen 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • For navigation, and because some reviewers reacted differently to the different story formats. --GunnarRene 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One small friendly recommendation: You say you'd "like to move this towards FA rather than GA; it certainly is a topic and article large enough to warrant it"... but you have know that the two featured articles of WP:ANIME, Excel Saga and Serial Experiments Lain, are barely 40KB, this one is pushing 60KB. Not because it is long it is guaranteed to be featured. Not everything about RahXephon needs to be here. Anything worth keeping, spin-off to sub-articles; what's not worth it, dump it.--Nohansen 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The Simpsons was recently featured, at about 6000 words of prose. The Adventures of Tintin is today's featured article with about 7200 words of prose. RahXephon now has about 5900 words of prose. (All excluding lists). Wikipedia:Article size recommend a limit around 6 000 to 10 000 words of prose.--GunnarRene 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • PS: Re: "Not because it is long it is guaranteed to be featured". My point was that the article is a bit long for the Good Article process, which is really just one person who hasn't worked on the article rating the article.... --GunnarRene 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great article, 3 comments:

  • Isn't there an anime logo to place in the infobox rather than a screenshot?
    • A plain logo would have the benefit of shortening the infobox, but it would be efen better to have an image with a logo, the RahXephon, and perhaps even some characters.
  • Since the article describes the tv show, manga and the movie, I would recommend making it more clearer in the lead that this is the case: the first sentence only states it's a tv show.
    • Done
  • To be honest (for the benefit of the article) the prose seemed a bit weak. Since I'm no english major may-be you could ask one of the members of WP:LoCE to run through the article?
    • Yes, we've already asked and are waiting.

Good luck at FAC! —Tutmosis 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks. Much appreciated.--GunnarRene 05:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kanon

Previous peer review

This article has gone through much revision in recent months and achieved Good Article status in January. I am looking to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon, and would like to know how to improve it more.--十八 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automatic

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GunnarRene
  • Should link to Lycèe Trading Card Game
I'll get on that.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's been GA rated and is comprehensive enough to be A (more than the Air article), but has a few problems that might undo the GA rating:

    • Livejournal and forum posts used as sources.
This is merely because that information cited in those source could not be easily found in other places, but the information is still very true. I'll try to do some sorting out and find some other sources to use.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The lead is inadequate: It should summarize the main points of the article rather than serve as mostly a release history.
The main points...Going off the TOC, we have Plot, Setting, Themes, Gameplay, Characters, Release and Sales, Reception, Adaptations, and Music. The Plot, Setting, Themes, and Characters most likely do not belong in the lead, or am I wrong? Gameplay is lightly touched upon, so that's there. While there is nothing on the Music in the lead, the lead is composed primarily of Release and Sales and Adaptations because there isn't really much else to put about the other sections.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
They do. Move some of the release details into the release section, and keep less detailed info in the lead. For example, exact release dates belong in the release section, not in the lead unless it's a particularly notable day like September 11 or Christmas Eve. You absolutely need to say something about the setting, plot, themes, characters and reception in the lead, without having to go too far into detail. Those things are the things that set it apart from other works. As for the music, you don't need to say much. Perhaps just state the number of soundtracks along with the other release info. In my view, the lead does not need to be equally balanced regarding each section length, but it has to summarize the article, and it needs to be equally NPOV. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why do the secondary characters have severly in-universe articles?

Wait, are you talking about the individual character articles themselves, or the short summaries in this article? If it's the former, then I'd say that's not the concern of this article. For the latter, you can't really describe the characters without getting in-universe, or am I wrong?--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The second. Be aware that on Featured Article review, daughter articles will also be scrutinized. It might be good to proactively reduce the secondaries to a list and reduce the amount of information. See {{plot}} and Wikipedia:Fair use for some reasons why. WP:FICTION is also relevant here. Some in-universe is good, but not so much. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What kind of source is hentai.co.uk? I can't find an "about" section even.
This was one of the original sources on this page. I believe the site serves many functions, but also gives information on hentai games, such as Kanon.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We need more information about who publishes it, and who writes on it. Without such information, it can't be relied on.--GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Anime Densetsu seems like a site that hosts reviews written by anonymous, unpaid, users. WP:RS?
    • Why that geocities reference?
I've removed them.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sales into reception, preferably.
I'll get on that.--十八 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, the prose could use some work before a Featured Article request, but it's understandable as it is - seemed better than the Air article. --GunnarRene 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the points about the sources that the article uses...I suppose I could remove all the sources and information taken from those sources if you are saying they shouldn't be there.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Great Teacher Onizuka episodes

I would like some input on how to make this list better. Please note though that the original air dates are mostly empty because I've been having a hard time finding sources for it. I might have to resort to using the English air dates, if only to fill in the table. Thanks. UnfriendlyFire 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. :) When was the Tokyopop release? Do you have a citation for that? -Malkinann 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a link here for the air dates on the Showtime network. I can check TV.com to verify those dates, but I think they might have referenced each other. The Tokyopop site might also have DVD release dates. UnfriendlyFire 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the DVD release date. So you can say 'Tokyopop's July 2003 release', or whichever. - Malkinann 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Characters of The Big O

I'd like to know the level of detail acceptable for the character entries in this article. As it is now, the entries go into ending details, character analysis and trivial commentary on the idiosyncrasies of the characters. ("Dorothy is also in the habit of standing perilously close to edge of the roofs of tall buildings" comes to mind)

I've checked the guidelines but am not any closer to understanding the right way to go about fixing the article. I like the List of Metal Gear Solid characters, but to follow it as an example would mean trimming most of what is already done. Any suggestions?--Nohansen 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple thoughts:
  • The first and probably most effective improvement would be to add more reliable sources - I appreciate your efforts to source the character info, but it looks to me as if most or all of the sources are blogs. The easiest source for info on something like this is to get all of the DVDs and manga volumes (maybe you can do it by interlibrary loan, or by leafing through the manga volumes at the store) and review the introductions/commentary/special features for "out of universe" information. If you can come up with a comment on why they chose Steve Blum for Roger or what they were going for with Dorothy, you can win big points both for sourcing and "out of universe" style.
  • Generally, all of the descriptions could be shortened and rewritten to make their point more clearly. It seems like there are some random sentences jumbled among what could be a clearer, better organized work, and those sentences should either be cut or integrated into the overall narrative.
Thanks, TheronJ 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at this article I can see a few obvious errors. There are a couple of spelling mistakes. It should conform to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) naming conventions. Move it to List of Big O characters or a similar name. It should also fit into a category other than the Big O category. It could be put into Category:Manga and anime characters by series for example. There are sentences like This character is a fictional character in the anime series The Big O which leads me to believe that there has been a mass merger of individual pages at some stage. --Squilibob 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so no other editor gets any ideas on renaming the article, WP:ANIME says Name this page List of characters in (series) if it is just a list, or Characters in (series) if it contains actual information on the characters. On the subject of what should be done with the "Character history" sections, I'd like to point out the Dalek article. Sure, the Daleks have a longer history than "Angel", but you get the idea.--Nohansen 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of The Big O media

As per SidiLemine's suggestion, I'm putting this article through peer review with the intention of going to WP:FLC.--Nohansen 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

GunnarRene

Here a pseudo-random review. (I've removed irrelevant parts)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[2]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Avoid using contractions like: don't, won't, won't, haven't, hasn't.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing: Before you move to featured list candidate, at least a majority of the episodes should have articles, as per FLC criteria 1 a. --GunnarRene 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice the videos from Youtube were removed. Thanks for fixing that. I'll see to working on more sources... I sort of threw together the list over the span of a few weeks. Looks good though, if I do say so myself.
Also: I was going to create episode specific articles, but was discouraged from doing so. See here. Anyone else have a say in this? Episode articles: in or out?--Nohansen 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, creating episode artiles should perhaps wait untill you have encyclopedic info to justify their creation. I also wanted to not make episode articles, but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links", and I was also getting more information than what would comfortably fit within a list. I also needed to refer to individual episodes. So that's why I created articles.
In any case, do all the other stuff first, and save episode articles to last. And if you can, give feedback on the RahXephon FLC above; negative citicism is very much appreciated too, for the improvement of the list. --GunnarRene 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links"". While it is true that large amounts of red links are discouraged in FLCs, the existence of links is not always important. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and List of Planetes episodes is a good example. --SteveA026 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That list had an article for each and every episode that only included the same plot summary as in the list, and I believe that was also the situation when promoted. Ned Scot recently redirected all the episode titles to the list and de-linked them. And rightly so. If an unlinked plot summary is the main focus of the article, then that is not something which we should have. And I agree that we should promote otherwise good episode lists even if they don't have an article for any episode — as long as it's good in other ways.--GunnarRene 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I created this article, following the guidelines in WP:EPISODE, and now it's been redirected to the media list. Any reason why this article was singled out? I understand SteveA026 had a problem with "forum posts as references", but couldn't you just remove the link?... Which, by the way, isn't a "forum post" in the pejorative sense of the phrase. It's just that the Save Big-O site has their episode synopsis in a forum. See here: "All the synopses have been completed, we just need final edits for some of them. If they are not yet posted to the main synopsis section you can find them in the forum.--User:Zola"
Oh, and by the way: SteveA026 created a List of allusions in The Big O. I like the idea. Any thoughts?--Nohansen 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Guess I jumped the gun on that edit. I took your comment on my talk page (and lack of response on the article's talk page) to mean that you changed your mind about the individual episode articles. Oops.
And about the sources, I thought three was kind of excessive anyway for a short, to-the-point episode summary, so we're not damaging the credibility of the article by removing the forum source. TV.com alone should be sufficient to give us the info we need. --SteveA026 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

School Rumble

I need some advice on how to improve this article. Things could be added, removed, modified and polished but I am at a loss on deciding what needs to be done and what should take priority. My main concern is the layout but content is a huge issue as well. --Squilibob 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider expanding the reception and video game sections. In the reception section, make sure to include quotations from multiple sources (including any positive or negative reactions) that address all aspects of the series. Also, see if you might be able to reference the article some more; there are currently no inline citations in the first three sections. Has the series created any controversy (including any books/episodes pulled for one reason or another)? If so, that'd be a good thing to include. For an example, take a look at the Excel Saga article, which is currently a featured article. ShadowHalo 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
A "Media" section would be nice, that could cover the manga, the animes, the seiyu performances and CDs, the games, and various merchandise. Also, because of the recent cut, the article is lacking in pictures...(but an image for each character is overkill, maybe take a screenshot of the whole class together?) And the reception section is a bit short, but I guess there's no helping that...elaborate the issues with the fansubs or something. Hope this helps. _dk 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok I have expanded reception and video games which was merged in with the other information into the Media section. Added a picture of the cast from a screenshot of the OP theme and elaborated a little on the fansub issues. I've added some more in-line references and will search for some more. --Squilibob 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The infobox picture shows the 2nd season logo from the anime, I think it is better if the one from the first season was put there instead. Because this article is not about the second season....And another point which may not have anything to do with this article...why do the characters all have their own articles? They really shouldn't, in my opinion. _dk 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The anime section seems a bit empty. I'm thinking it needs info on the episode format (3 mini-episodes per episode), an episode list and, if possible, detailing the which manga chapters are adapted in the anime.--Nohansen 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Air (series)

I have requested a peer review to Air (series) so that perhaps the article could be built up to Featured Article status.---- (十八) 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Lack of Japanese reviews is going to kill it. We've got to figure out how to counteract that.--SeizureDog 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I entirely agree when looking at such featured articles as Serial Experiments Lain and Excel Saga that seem to have almost no Japanese reviews of the series.---- (十八) 07:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Excel Saga got a lot of flak about it though. I was actually surprised it was able to pass with those objects still unanswered. Plus, I think the FA reviewers might expect reviews for a game more than a TV show. Additionally, considering the series has not been licensed outside of Japan, I think reviewers may be less lenient. Filling up with a bunch of reviews for an English release is one thing, but only having English reviews of a Japanese exclusive is a bit unbalanced. All I'm saying is that the issue is bound to come up in a FAC, so we should try to deal with it ahead of time.--SeizureDog 09:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Anime_and_manga_Peer_review_2007_9e37.html"