Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strawberry Panic!/archive1

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

[edit] Strawberry Panic!

This article has gone through a ton of positive revisions in the past month or so and was recently granted Good Article status. I believe it statisfies the FA criteria.--十八 06:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

SupportSatisfies the FA criteria exceptionally well.--Orthologist 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object for now due largely to concerns below about the number of blogs/forums cited as sources, especially in the "reception" section, which is critical to making a FA appeal to more than just people who are already fans of the series.
  • " Shoujoai.com forums discussing Strawberry Panic!." is listed as a source... general forums threads really aren't acceptable as sources in any articles, let alone featured articles.

I'll try to find some way to phase these out. Edit: I've replaced the reference.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • "The original artist was Chitose Maki" If they were original short stories, why was there an artist? Were the stories illustrated? Needs to be made more clear for people unfamiliar with Japanese media perhaps. It does go on to explain this somewhat in the "Short stories" section, but that's far from the intro where this question was raised. But I was still wondering if these were what western readers would recognize as a "short story", e.g. several pages of text, or was it more similar to a manga?

Using the term "short stories" is basically because that is the closest thing I could see them as. I suppose "illustrated short stories" would be better then. The first 18 or so stories were very very short, only encompassing a few paragraphs at a time. There is an example of the length of the first short story at Strawberry Panic! (short stories). And now, nothing like a manga. It was more like here's some text, and here's an illustration that goes with the text.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • Could "fan service" include a short definition? This phrase is relatively important to understand and, I think, is going to be unfamiliar to many readers. I assumed it was a take-off of "lip service" but had to read the article fan service to really figure out the full meaning.

Will do.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • Some overlinking going on... do we really need to wikilink climaxing, dating, constellation, romance and perhaps even crush? It's a minor gripe but I kept noticing common words being linked.

This is a side-effect from an earlier time in this pages history. I have tried to phase out most of them, and will get on that.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • "the later adapted visual novel version of the series" is this the manga or the "light novel" referred to earlier? Terminology should be consistant or at least explained for people unfamiliar with the topic.

When it says "series", it's meant to be taken as a whole. The short stories were used as a basis for the manga and light novels that followed, and the anime was adapted from those. The game would then most likely be adapted from the manga and light novel as well, or at least the stage in the history once the short stories were done.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • Why aren't the subsections in "Adaptations" ordered chronologically? Seemed kind of confusing to talk about the "Internet radio show" with voiceactors from the earlier anime before talking about the anime.

I thought they were listed chronlogically. The Internet radio show began in November 2005, a full 5 months before the anime aired. It is noted which person played which part in the anime, but this was merely so the reader would know why these people were hosting this show and what role they played within the story. I guess I could make it more specific on how the anime aired later on, but as far as chronlogical ordering goes, it is in such an order.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • Is the "Internet radio show" basically a radio play that tells the story of the short stories? Article didn't fully explain this.

It was difficult to translate the wiki page, so this may be a part that doesn't get much info. I'll try to translate some pertanant information and include it.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Some uncited paragraphs... mostly minor, but this sentence might need a cite: "[the anime] has a central yuri theme though nothing of it gets to the point to be considered hentai, or extremely lewd." That's somewhat interpretive and should probably be attributable to a source in a FA.

Ah, you're right. I'll just remove the POV.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • "panned by Erica Friedman" Who is Erica Friedman? Should describe her basic position or what publication she writes for. Also this looks to be referenced to a blogspot blog... rarely a reliable source.

I'll try to work on this. I've now removed it.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

Erica Friedman works for Yuricon and ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri, one of the genres SP! belongs to. Her Okazu blog, although unaffiliated with Yuricon and ALC Publishing, is used to review yuri anime and manga. She could be considered something of an expert in the field. -Malkinann 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If it could be written to briefly mention her status, I think that would be reasonable (the entire mention of her seems to be gone from the article at the moment). As it was it just said her name and nothing about who she was. --W.marsh 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it for the lack of a reliable source (I had no idea about what Malkinann has stated). I will reinsert her paragraph with the explanation.--十八 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

Thanks for listening. -Malkinann 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The next review is attributed only to the pseudonym "shoujoboy". I'm not sure if this counts for much of a meaningful critic either. Another review is attributed to yet another blog (animeblogger). Did no published critics ever write about this series?

I do see your point...As far as published critics, the series has not been released in English yet, and as far as reputable Japanese reviews go, I'd say they are either very hard to find, or very little in number. Edit: I've removed the blogger entries from Reception.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • Doesn't have much about it's overall market success. I don't know if "1,918 units" of the box set sold is much. Was this considered a successful venture?

There was a comparison drawn between the DVD sales of this series with Maria-sama ga Miteru which recieved higher sales numbers. As far as if it was successful or not, I wouldn't be able to say at this point.--十八 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some of these are minor stylistic issues that I'm more pointing out and asking for comments on, rather than demanding they be fixed. --W.marsh 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Most of "Reception" seems out of place. Much of the information should be worked into the other articles or the sections on that specific media (e.g. Famitsu review should be under "Visual novel" section"). The section should be on critical opinions on the series as a whole, not just one medium of it. Erica Friedman's comments for example, are fine. Everything else needs to be elsewhere.

But if a person wants to know about the reception of the visual novel, shouldn't it make sense to put it in Reception? Making the reader do more work doesn't make sense.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite happened for me, which is why I brought it up. I read the section on the visual novel and thought I had read all there was on it, but then saw the Famitsu review later it slightly frustrated me that it seemed out of place. Also, the statement "The first day in the game requires over a full hour of non-interactive reading" seems likely incorrect. Does the game actually not have any fast forward options to get through the first day in less than an hour? Is the pacing set? Because that'd be rather odd for a visual novel.--SeizureDog 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On the "full hour" thing, I got this from the same site that I got most of the gameplay from, and this was from someone that played the game themselves. If you think it's disputable, then I'll remove the "full hour" statement, and just write that the first day is non-interactive reading. And about Famitsu, if you think it should be moved, then I'll move it.--十八 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • Exactly how important is the "Seven mysteries" section? It seems crufty to me.

Ah! I knew this was going to come up, I was just waiting for someone to say something...I agree in that it probably shouldn't be there. I will remove it if you think it's a problem. Edit: I'll just remove it now; it is cruft...--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • Why are there "retrieved on" on non-internet based cites (damn pun)? Remove these instances for magazine (and other) cites, as the information is only needed for internet cites because what you linked to may later be different or gone.

I was under the impression that cites had to show when they were accessed despite what type of source they are. If this is not the case, I will remove it from the ones that aren't from websites.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Y

• • The in-universe information is excellent, but I'm concerned of the lack of out-of-universe sections like "Development". However, since the article is on all of the series, it's kinda hard to fault you on this.

Development in terms of what? Development of the series? I thought that's what the Adaptations section is for, to show the history of the series.--十八 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I don't know. It just feels like it's missing something, but I can't really suggest anything to do. --SeizureDog 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to avoid voting on this article, as I prefer to remain neutral for articles in the anime/manga Wikiproject as I use such articles as case studies and prefer them to pass from the approval of non-otaku community rather than my own. --SeizureDog 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments: The animesuki forum thread citation is dodgy. Also, the article could probably do with a copyedit. -Malkinann 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the information was posted on a forum does not make the information false. Those figures are accurate. And this article has already gone through extensive copyediting, but sure, it probably needs some more. I've done all the copyediting I can do at this point.--十八 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it being in a forum doesn't neccessarily make the information false, but a more verifiable source for them would be appreciated. Even in the thread itself, people asked the poster of the sales data for a source. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful in copyediting. Maybe if you asked at the League of Copyeditors for some assistance with the copyediting? -Malkinann 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

While I do realize that if it wasn't on a forum it would look better for verifiability, the reason I cited it from that source is because I couln't find any other sales figures. Not that those are particularly amazing since they're only as of Nov. 2006, but they're something. As for the LoCE, it says that since the article is current an FAC, then we should wait until copyediting is the only thing left until we ask them for assistence.--十八 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is a nice looking article. The content flows well and despite the occasional sentence, is written very well. A user has changed the format of the Grading table and when it is expanded it looks cramped. I think it looked better in the first place but perhaps it should be revised anyway, maybe with some more whitespace. Overall I think the article is developed and it is well on its way to FA. --Squilibob 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Object: Interesting article with sourcing problems (as brought up above).
  • I escalated the copyediting problem to an "object", since the prose seemed a bit stilted in places. I'll try to help out myself, either by fixing or by tagging problematic areas.
  • Reception and sales should be noted in the lead.
  • Sales should be moved into reception, since that's where I would look. Or otherwise make a section-reference to where it can be found. Either explicitly to section or with "As mentioned above ....." --GunnarRene 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Non-object comments:
  • How about making the release information in the lead less detailed? Months instead of full dates for example?
  • The balance of the article suggests more about the plot in the lead, but I'm not objecting on that. There is some there already. --GunnarRene 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.