Talk:Golden Boy (manga)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Golden Boy (manga) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article was a former Anime and Manga CotW. (9 April 2006)
See how it improved – Before – After

I propose this to be the centre page for both the manga, and the animation.

I doubt there is enough information available to split the page into seperate pages for anime and manga.

--Onizuka-gto 14:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 10:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

  • The editors could add on the setting, where does it take place and when does it take place?
  • Is there a reason behind the fact that only 10 volumes where made?
  • Could we have a spoiler warning sign before the OVA subsection?

Lincher 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why there's only ten volumes, and I addressed the other issues. I don't see yet why you thought the manga image did not add significantly to the article. It's not a controversial fair use image and seeing as this article is based primarily on the manga, I don't see how an image demonstrating the aspect of the mangaka's drawing style doesn't add to the article. But whatever. I put it in the magaka's article. - Phorque 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If you feel the image qualifies fair use then bring it back on the article's page. I just thought that the place it was and the caption it had doesn't add to the text ... though this is my opinion. Lincher 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA re-review

This article has been modified according to the comments left on the talk page and is now a Good Article. Lincher 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article had been vandalized...someone Please change the title back to where they were...

68.206.24.9 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trigun

The main character Kintaro is similar in a few ways to Vash from Trigun. Instead of the reputation as a legendary gunman, Kintaro is seen as a pervert. Both are negative first impressions before getting to know the character as more moral then common people. Both main characters have excellent combative skill, a good understanding of the human mind, extremely kind to everybody, etc. (bishonen traits). The only major difference is the setting and genre (action vs. ecchi). Could this be included somehow? Just how poetry should be read in light of other poetry, I believe manga is the same.

I think it better to avoid comparisons without quality citations. Otherwise, the article risks charges of original research.--Monocrat 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pornographic

Ok, this has been on the page for a while now, but the comment about the manga becoming pornographic is an odd one. For one, it cites a passing reference in some ANN news blurb, which really isn't very credible. And another, I've now had the fortune of seeing the manga in person. I saw nothing pornographic in it. I don't think volume 2 is really any different from volume 1 in any significant way. Later on the manga does get more serious and there is some sex, but it's way less explicit than anything considered pornography by any reasonable standard. And much, much less frequent. The idea of a manga "becoming" pornographic is a pretty wild one in the first place. It was published in a periodical anthology just like anything else. The fact that the article doesn't even correctly site the source, calling it "almost pornographic," is pretty telling. Any objections to removing this?--61.202.57.241 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it in a weakened form, perhaps with weakened wording?--Monocrat (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)