Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for Tokyo Mew Mew: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Copy edit the main article.
  • Other:
    • Characters needs work: clean up, create single List of with only major characters, drop minors. Rewrite section in main article to give general overview of characters in summary paragraph form, providing the reader with the relevant details of the topic's more important points re WP:SS).
    • Push for GA/FA: when the rest is done, get copyedited, peer-reviewed and see if we can meet the qualifications for GA or FA. Try to get related lists to featured list status as well. Obtain Featured topic status.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4


Contents

[edit] Production

In another item on the to-do list, I worked on the production section some more earlier today, including what information was available in the first volume "making of" type notes. I'm going to go through the rest of the volumes again to see if there are any other notes, particularly about the anime adaptation. Any thoughts on what's there so far though? Collectonian (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Very informative:). I think this part of production is very well covered now. G.A.S 08:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Assessment

I believe Tokyo Mew Mew may now be at the point that it can go from Start to B class. Per the criteria "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles." I think we meet that. We only have a few bits of unreferenced stuff to fix, with almost all referencable info now in the article.

Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. The real question is: how far we are from GA class? G.A.S 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that far, of course not counting the months it might actually take for someone to review it </annoyance at Wolf's Rain being there since February and still counting>. I'm tempted to just got the gusto, finish up what needs to be finished, get someone to copyedit, and go straight for FA if possible. We've got decent production and reception sections, I think. Mostly just need to finish the CDs, check referencing, peer review and copy edit, unless you can see other areas that need fixing? Collectonian (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We may probably drop a note at the wikiproject to ask for input... GA does not require a listing at GA review per se. And you are correct. We may skip that part, although a third party review might provide relevant input. G.A.S 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
GA does require listing at GAN to really be valid. Otherwise it will quickly be removed, either by an editor or a bot. B is as high as an article can go without outside review. I'd rather any GA be on the up and up :) I'm thinking once the last tweaks are in, a peer review will be good (which would also include a request at the project for input). Depending on the results of that, skip the GA and go for FA. :PCollectonian (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen articles being promtaoted to GA status at a formal peer review before (Can't remember which one, but I can look it up, if needed (I believe it was an WP:ANIME related article). But you are right, it is better to aim for FA status (Why is it that A class articles are better than GA class, but A class is not as well known, nor gain as much attention?). G.A.S 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've had the same question myself (about A class). Never seen the point of it myself. We don't use it in the anime project. I don't think most projects bother with it either since if you're going above GA might as well just go for FA. :P Collectonian (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like WP:ANIME has a section for A class review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess, but it does not seem to get a lot of attention. G.A.S 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there has been some talk of just dropping A class all together. Should probably be done for the anime/manga project anyway, since it doesn't even appear in our assessment scale :P Its supposed to be higher than GA, but higher than GA should be FA so A is rarely used at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summary

Should a paragraph summarizing a la Mode be added to the plot section, perhaps as a subsection or just with a lead in of "In the sequel Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode...? Collectonian (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it in the plot section (as is), as it is a distinctively seperate story for the most part — only one of the original "writers" helped with it, it has new characters, new villians, etc. etc.
You could consider using plot\TMM and plot\TMMalM subsections to give the appropriate plots. (In which case TMMalM should probably only use 2-3 paragraphs (2 books vs. 7 books), with the manga list providing a more complete summary).
The applicable section in the lead should be updated in any case.
G.A.S 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've made an attempt at the plot summary of a La Mode, added as a subsection under plot (in keeping with the MoS suggestions for such a situation). Feel free to copyedit and clean up as needed. Collectonian (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I will re-visit the section later. One thing I have observed is the use of "hypnotism"; where I believe "hypnosis" is more correct. The section does not flow nicely yet; I will probably ask a few questions before I can copy edit and clarify the section, but it does seem to cover the plot nicely. Would it be possible to add 1/3 of ccontent to it - it is a little short (Maybe about the SRC each attacking and then fading away into the background)? G.A.S 23:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the hypnosis and expanded a little. :) Collectonian (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice. I have completed the copy editing of the section. G.A.S 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media section

At long last, I've rewritten and filled out the CDs section (formerly other). Just needs some copyediting, but I think it can be considered done? Anything else to do before the article goes to peer review? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems good (Sorry for the late reply). I have also listed the Peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review. G.A.S 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and welcome back :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character Section Redux

Per the on-going peer review, the Characters section is pretty redundant to the plot. Thoughts on going back to the more standard bullet list of the mains, or someone want to tackle a rewrite of the section to make it less repetitive?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this comment: "The first paragraph of Characters seems to repeat much of the material from the Plot on the five girls."?
Seems like the problem is only the first paragraph (And probably only the first part: "Tokyo Mew Mew's protagonists ... Red Data Animals.").
If that is indeed the case, I believe that this paragraph can be re-summarised from the list, as it does not seem that the list is repeating the plot.
Do you think this can solve the problem?
G.A.S 05:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It should. Care to give it a whirl? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a half an hour, I will see what I can do. G.A.S 05:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I am done → Comment please on this? G.A.S 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks good. Reads better and more naturally. Any thoughts on doing the rest of that section the same?Having sources in there would be a very good thing when it goes for GA or FA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I could do it, but am out of time right now (Will only have time tonight?). Seems like there is some work left before it is ready for FA, but being good to know that it is close to GA:) It is the best shape the article has ever been in:) G.A.S 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I look forward to it :) They also mentioned it needing more copyediting. I tried doing a bit using that Tony guide. With LoCE practically useless these days, any ideas on getting the whole thing rechecked? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Mind reading the article out loud? This is actually a good start, just comment problem areas for now. There are also good advice at User:AndyZ/Suggestions and Wikipedia:Writing better articles, but I am sure you have looked at them by now. Maybe another participant at WP:ANIME would be willing to look at it as well (But then again, they could have peer reviewed as well)? Chance is, as it seems from Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests, articles are only a priority once they are actually candidates for GA or FA class, so there will be little use in asking them yet. I will see later if there are still obvious issues. G.A.S 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they ignore GA noms too. Had one sitting with them for over a month that was a GAN. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have seen copy-editors being approached on their talk page in order to have a FAC pass, but I doubt they appreciate it a lot. But I also think it is not the most thankful work to do, either.
I guess at this stage the most important part would be to get as much external input as possible: Maybe it would be worthwhile to list the article for GAN once this is over, at least we will know if there are further issues before a FAC listing; once it is GA we can list the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests, and hope someone looks at it.
We should ask for additional input at WP:ANIME re possible outstanding issues.
G.A.S 07:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Done with the section. Mind having a look at the references? As always, comment is appreciated. G.A.S 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll bring in the refs this evening. Meanwhile will post a note to the PR to see if that takes care of things. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Items for copy editing

From reviewing the article myself, and applying the same standards as when I peer reviewed others' articles, I came to realise that the article is in serious need of a thorough copy edit. I will, for now list the items (or fix them where I can).

The following advice came from the guides listed above.

  • Short paragraphs and short sections usually disrupt the flow of an article (occasionally they can be judiciously used to emphasize an important point). Either merge them into another paragraph/section, expand the section with important information, or simply remove the paragraph/section, taking care that you are not deleting an important fact. Paragraphs of one or two sentences often appear short to our readers.
  • See also User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them.

Other items

  • Some sections may need referencing: Plot
  • Media section may need an introductory paragraph.
  • "The manga series is licensed for English language release by Tokyopop": This should be rewritten in the active voice: "xxx has licensed Tokyopop to release the manga series in English"; but I do not know who has licensed them to do so. (Same issue with the DVDs and 4Kids)

Please strike out items when they are fixed, I will likewise list new items above.

G.A.S 05:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Media section does not need an intro paragraph, per the MoS and existing standards. The plot does not need referencing. The defacto reference is the primary work. Only interpretive statements in plot sections require referencing. For the copyediting, yes, I agree, but finding one is a near impossibility these days. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thus the use of "may" :) I will attempt to copy edit as best I can, but it may take a while. Maybe we should put in a request at LoCE in any case. Also refer to the new comment in the lead paragraph. G.A.S 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User:Mizu onna sango15 to help me copy edit by reviewing the changes and commenting thereon, so I should be able to copy edit the article myself. G.A.S 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job so far, G.A.S, I only had to correct a minor grammatical error or two and the rest look good. Also, per wikt:subsequently's usage notes, it looks like your use of the word is not redundant. Good luck with the second half; let me know when you're ready for me to assist you. :-) Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

I disagree on the suggested rephrasing. All current FLs for episode and chapter lists use similar phrasing. Also, sources rarely say a company licensed a series to so and so (which would not be an accurate phrasing). For active voice, it can just be rewritten as Tokyopop licensed the series for an English language release in North America. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It was just an example; I have not worked it out yet:). I believe your suggestion would work very well. G.A.S 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) I've been trying to catch myself with those passive phrasings (the plague of my writing), but missed it here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have skipped that paragraph for now, but this is a painfully slow process at the moment: I have only managed to copy edit half a paragraph for now. I will continue later. G.A.S 06:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. All-in-all, the article is not that bad, especially for a B-class article. Are you trying to reach FA? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the eventual goal is FA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(←)Everything above the "characters" section have been completed. I am not going to copy edit the character section, as I have written it (Mizu onna sango15, will you please see if anything needs to be done there); but will continue with the section below it. Once this has been done, we could apply for GA status (for feedback purposes) and then FA status:). G.A.S 10:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)