Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review/2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of Mr. Stain Characters

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… it has not been rated yet

Thanks,

Binarymoron (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Stain

I've listed this article for peer review because…

new info has been added to it and it has changed from its previous version

any suggestions for improving this article will be more than appreciated Thanks,

Binarymoron (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this article looks significantly better than the old version at first glance, it still feels very much like a stub to me. Here are some suggestions for possible expansion:
  • The article seems to be almost entirely slanted towards the American version of it. You should give more information on the Japanese version other than just the little in the info-box (i.e. what company makes it, etc.).

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • An entire section could be made on production. What made Ryuji Masuda create the series? Why did he create it the way he did? How is it produced?

N Not done lack of proper information.Binarymoron (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Expand the music section. Tell more about the music, who composed it, how it is recorded (i.e. digital, orchestra, individual musicians, etc.).

N Not done lack of proper information.Binarymoron (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What was the critical reception of the series? Has there been any noteworthy praise, criticism, etc. of the series? Did someone notable love it or hate it?

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Did the series air on TV or was it a web series originally? What channel did it air on in Japan? In America? What were the ratings like in both countries? Is it significant for any reason in any other country?

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You quote a lot of the information from the special features of the DVDs. Can you incorporate this information into expanding other sections instead of putting it into the DVD section? Maybe just list all the special features in one list. In general, the DVD section should usually be very simple and straightforward.

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Your description of the show I'm really just picturing a cross between Wile E. Coyote and Teletubbies. You should really expand it in a plot section and tell exactly what goes on in each episode. Make the reader who's never seen the series picture exactly what the series is about.

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I corrected some style issues myself but your references are cited wrong. See WP:REF for information on how to cite your sources within the article. Remember, in general, anything that I wouldn't know about the series just through common knowledge, since I haven't seen it, should be cited within the article.

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also remember your consistency in number usage. In general, numbers under one hundred should be written out (e.g. one instead of 1). I corrected some of these I saw within the article.

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. -- Redfarmer (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done requested CopyEdit.Unnecessary terms have been removed. Binarymoron (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above reviews are for the older version of Mr. Stain, links are

Redfarmer's review for :this

And

Ruhrfisch's review for :this

The current version is the revised version of Mr. Stain.

It would be helpful if you could help me with the not done portions of the article (marked above). Thanks, Binarymoron (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Non automated comments from Ruhrfisch

  • Reference tags should have a space after them. I fixed those int he two lead paragraphs, but the rest need this too.

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Dates need to be wikilinked, fixed the first two.

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't understand this: "The CGI was produced by FUNimation Entertainment and broadcasted in Japan by Kids Station, beginning January 6, 2003, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at 12 p.m. (JST). The show also premiered between 10:50 p.m. and 23:30 p.m.(JST) on December 31, 2002.[4]" I would list the premier first, then the usual air times. Also 10:50 p.m. makes sense, but 23:30 pm does not - either "between 10:50 and 11:30 p.m." or "between 22:50 and 23:30". I think most casual readers would understand the p.m. version better.

Y DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You might want to find a featured article or good article on an animated series and use it as a model for the article.

using Excel Saga Binarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The characters table refers to episode number, but the list of episodes does so by title and "Volume" number. The table of characters seems a bit much - could there just be a list of major characters and then the details on the minor ones could be in the episode summaries?

Y Done still working on the character list Binarymoron (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Instead of al ist of characters, how about a paragraph or two describing them? Start with Mr. Stain, then talk about the characters who appear in the most episodes (volumes) (the cats?). Then maybe move on to characters by type - robots together, or love interests, or birds?

Y Done Binarymoron (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In the lead paragraphs it says "There is no dialogue, just music and sound effects, similar to the old Looney Tunes cartoons." I did not know there were Looney Tunes without dialogue. My question is, if there is no dialogue, how do we know the characters' names?


Y Done Binarymoron (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Characters section, can you give examples of how the names suggest their fates or roles? In the list it mentions the fish named "Eaten" - any others? Also why is Mr. Stain called that? What does Palvan mean and are there any differences between the Japanese and English names in meaning (if you translated the Japanese names into English, would they all be the same)? You might want to mention here that Mr. Stain is the only character who appears in all episodes, Palvan next, etc. Some characters roles are more obvious than others - Lost kitten needs no explanation, but who is Stephanie? Is Handsome Stain real? Would "abandoned" be a better description of the baby than "deserted"?


Y Done the cast names only appear in english, I added this in the lead.

  • "Also why is Mr. Stain called that? What does Palvan mean?"
have to be answered. Binarymoron (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Storyline - no references in any of the four paragraphs (plus none in the last pragraph of Characters). Pehaps a quote or two about the story from a reviewer could be used here?

Y Done

Episodes - these are mostly fairl well written

General - still needs a copyedit, cleanup. Probably by someone who has seen the show. Hope this helps answer your question, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf's Rain

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has been significantly improved over the last month. Many parts have been completely rewritten and the article has been completely restructured to better follow the anime/manga MOS. Relevant information that was missing before, such as manga details and reception, has been added and the article has gone from having only 2 references to 27. I think it is ready to move from Start to B class, but would like outside opinions has I have done most of the work on its improvements. I'm also looking for feedback on remaining work that may be needed before it is ready for GA or FA status.

Thanks in advance, Collectonian (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad the script actually notes which weasely words it found, cause I can never figure out which ones are bad. :) One thing I didn't quite get, though, is it said the lead needs expansion even though the lead is 3 paragraphs long and, as far as I can, summarizes the article well. Collectonian (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Ideas if you go for GA.

  • Move up the Poland flagicon with France so their is only one line for Canal+ in the other network section of the infobox.
  • Add this line behind Keiko Nobumoto in the author section of the manga infobox: <br/> Toshitsugu Iida (Art).
  • Need a space on both sides of the hyphen in the Released section of the OVA in the infobox.
  • Add Japan flagicon in front of Kodansha in the manga section of the infobox.
  • Make sure the release dates for the manga are right. Anime News Network has the Japanese releases at 2003-07-23 to 2004-02-23. Link full dates.
  • Change 26 to twenty-six in the lead and episodes sections.
  • Change recap to recapitulation or summary.
  • Change all OVA to original video animation.
  • Change 30 to thirty in the lead and episodes sections.
  • Change into Tankōbon to [[Tankōbon|bound volumes]]
  • I counted six different red links. Consider making stub articles or removing the links.
  • Plot section might be considered to be excessively detailed, consider trimming it down.
  • As it stands the character section is a regurgitation of the plot. This section is for the characters (mostly the major characters) in which they are described in modest detail, including voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{anime voices}}). If possible add a group pic. If it is a fair-use image, remember to add fair-use rational.
  • Change 15-18 to fifteen through eighteen in the reception section.
  • Change 24 to twenty-four in the episodes section.
  • The line:"The vocals were recorded around the world, including Japan, Poland, Brazil, the United States, and Italy to offer a diverse range of music and give the soundtrack an international flavor." seems to me as something that needed to be cited.
  • Change 44 to forty-four in the soundtrack section.
  • Some words used in the article are Words to avoid.
  • Drop the {{Contains Japanese text}} tag lower in the page. I find it works well between the External links sub header and the first link because the right side of the page is usually empty here anyhow.

(Duane543 (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the feedback. The line about the vocals is cited (#19, shared with the sentence after it). On the Japanese text box, there has been some discussion that it should be at the top as it applies to the whole article and people should be told at the start, not after they get to the end and already probably figured it out themselves ;-) I think I've taken care of the rest except the plot (will work on), and the Tankōbon, which is commonly used for manga discussions, so wasn't sure why it should be changed? I also got rid of all but two red links. I have a translation request in for Shin Vision's italian wikipedia article, and I will create a stub for Ota since he seems to be notable (has won some awards for his work on other series) :) Can you point out some of the words to avoid you spotted? I'm horrible at spotting those. Collectonian (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Words to avoid that I seen (I did not put them in context, so it is up to your own judgment):
  • However: {Plot- paragraph 1, sentence 3}, {Manga adaptation differences- paragraph 1, sentence2}, {Manga adaptation differences- paragraph 2, sentence 2}
  • Supposed: {Plot- paragraph 1, sentence 3}
  • Report: {Reception- paragraph 5, sentence 1} Also missing a period on this sentence.
  • Note(s) (Note is a word to avoid, so I'm not sure about notes): {Manga- paragraph 2, sentence 2}, {Reception- paragraph 1, sentence 3}, {Reception- paragraph 4, sentence 3}
  • Tankōbon is considered to be a subject-specific term (A.K.A jargon).
  • As for the citation issue, they are two sentences. They both could be citied, but I believe the # 19 citation would be better suited on the line I questioned about above.
  • I'm almost sure that if you are using partial quotes, you should use ellipsis to show it. This is the sentence I'm talking about : One reviewer notes that the soundtrack "shows [Kanno's] skills as both composer and pianist," and is "a treat to hear."
(Duane543 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC))
Ahhh...However is a word I use quite a bit too :-P I think I've taken care of everything. I went for volume for Tankōbon, though, as it is what is generally used in the english market over bound collection :-) Thanks again! Collectonian (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manga

With the significant work to reference this article within the past couple of months, it is an easy Good Article candidate. It just barely missed being a Good Article because of one few unreferenced section, which has now been fixed. However, I want to go one step further and see just how close this article is to being a Featured Article and what needs to be improved to reach that status. My main concern is that it may be over referenced.

Thanks,

Farix (Talk) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply You may be right, but without more details about what references might be excess, unnecessary, or redundant, there weren't any guidelines for removing citations. So they were all kept pending such input. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply It already exists. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Why no pre-WWII pictures? In fact, this goes for the entire article. The subject is intensely subjective and visual - it's about art! - and so too many pictures is not enough. A picture of a manga cafe would be good too, or perhaps a picture on a train where everyone is reading manga. It's one thing to say it's a major part of modern life, and another to actually show it.
Reply Not enough room to put in all the pictures we need. There have been discussions about this for months, but no simple solution has emerged. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, it seems to have an odd focus. In the post-WWII section, we have 2 sections on Shojo (which is all well and good since Shojo is a very important category of manga) and then we jump straight to '3 Manga publications'. ...what? There are other important genres to be covered, from shonen to American-style murder mysteries and suspense to the early sci-fi and mecha stuff, too.
Reply This has been fixed by inserting completely new, heavily referenced sections on manga for male readers and on gekiga manga. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply Added later. The new sections are major additions to the article, not merely a sentence or two. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, I'd like to see more pictures/screenshots, particularly if they are spaced out in time such that you can see the evolution from the most primitive '40s era manga art-style to the slickest modern one, or if they illustrate the various 'styles' of manga (like 4-koma or full page spreads like Blade of the Immortal uses, etc.);
Reply Not enough room for the pictures. I wish there were room. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
a section on the intertwined relationship of anime and manga; and a finer-grained breakdown of sections - they are pretty monolithic.
Reply Again, not enough room to go into anime-manga connections.

--Gwern (contribs) 02:11 22 December 2007 (GMT)

  • Under the dōjinshi section, I find the part about omakes to be out of place especially because it's mentioned before defining dōjinshi. Omakes is not only a part of dōjinshi. Maybe move the omake part under publications? Toothpyx (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply I agree that the dojinshi section -- the whole publication section, in fact -- needs a lot of work. But it's not my area of expertise, and I can't do it. Someone else will have to fill in here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A few things about the article, in no particular order.
First, there's some excess detail. In statements like "Another example is CLAMP's Magic Knight Rayearth, whose three young heroines, Hikaru, Umi, and Fuu, are magically transported to the world of Cephiro to become armed magical warriors in the service of saving Cephiro from internal and external enemies." the names of the planet and the heroines should be removed to focus the reader's attention on what matters. Perhaps the example should be removed entirely. I suggest searching for other places where the article gives too much detail.
Reply It seemed unwise to remove Magic Knight Rayearth, since it is one of the most popular manga in both Japan and the US. Removing the heroines' names deletes only a few words. But without more details about other examples you consider excess, unnecessary, or redundant, there wasn't much else I could do about this issue. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Second, there's a fruit salad of orthographic styles. The same name is written variously, for example with or without macrons, or with long vowels written as ou. Japanese words suffer the same fate (shojo and shōjo, for example). Is "Aikawa Minwa" correct? There's a spelling error in the transliteration of Versailles.
Reply Yes, Aikawa Minwa is correct. Versailles has been fixed. Sometimes the macrons are missing in the original titles and references, and we can't add them without getting those titles and references wrong. Perhaps you yourself could correct other mistakes when you find them? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The article should be proofread with the goal of bringing it into accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The abbreviation "lit." is unnecessary even if the explanations are kept (see "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style). There are a few slashes. See "Avoid joining two words by a slash" in the Manual of Style. There are variations on styles (quotes, italics, no styling) the article uses for titles, foreign words, and words as words. There are several mixed citation styles (with inline citation and a footnote number), for example, "(Schodt 1986, p. 88)6 " . Are these dual-format citations required, or should they be simplified? "Bande Dessinée" has capital letters in one place where it should have lowercase. There are various abbreviations of "United States" (I noticed "U.S.A." and "US.") Spaces around a dash in the sentence "All of these innovations – strong and independent female characters, intense emotionality, and complex design – remain characteristic of shōjo manga up to the present day." result in a line beginning with a dash (when I view it on my screen). The Manual of Style specifies no spaces around dashes.
Reply Fixed these.
I don't think it's fruitful to explain "image-centered" as "pictocentric" and "word-centered" as "logocentric" in this article. Can we remove the explanations, which don't appear elsewhere in the article, and don't clarify (at least to me) the simpler terms?
Reply Those two words aren't explanations, they're the words used by the author being quoted. I think this is a matter of taste, actually, and I left them. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Some sentences need editing. "In 1969, a group of women mangaka later called "The Magnificent 24s" made their shōjo manga debut (the term comes from the Japanese name for 1949, when many of these artists were born)." (Which term?) Reply: fixed this. "Although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films.[17][18] (e.g. Star Wars)." I'm not sure of the point of the sentence "Although U.S. Occupation censorship policies specifically targeted art and writing that glorified war and Japanese militarism,[6] those policies did not prevent the publication of other kinds of material, including manga." Is it saying that policies permitted manga, or that policies permitted glorification of war and Japanese militarism in manga (but not in other forms of expression)?
Reply I changed "targeted" into "prohibited." Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
English could substitute for a lot of foreign terms. Do extended glosses like "redisu / josei 女性 じょせい" really add to the word "ladies'" or should they be removed? Do we need a repeat ("This "Ladies Comic" subgenre (in Japanese, redisu レディース, redikomi レヂィーコミ, and josei) has dealt with themes of young adulthood")? Reply: fixed this. How many times is the German word bildungsroman necessary, and can the English term "coming-of-age," which it explains, substitute for it? In the English Wikipedia, most of these foreign-language terms should be removed, especially in articles to which Manga links, when the terms are explained in the article.
Reply: Bildungsroman is the correct technical term, and the one used by Wikipedia itself for the article. It is defined in an endnote. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Are all the people called "scholars" scholars? One is Takashi Murakami. He well might be; I don't know. Having skimmed the article on him, I don't get the impression of a scholar, but perhaps I missed something, or the article on him omitted his scholarship. (It covers artistic and entrepreneurial activities and mentions that he left a doctoral program.) The same word also describes Frederik L. Schodt. However, the article on him says that he is a writer, translator and interpreter famous for translating manga. Again, he might be a scholar, but writer, translator and interpreter don't add up to scholar. A scholar could write a book with a title like "Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics" but writing a book with that title doesn't automatically make him a scholar. Critical examination of the roles of these authors can help bring this article to the next level.
Reply I changed the word "scholar" to "author" and "writer" since it serves no purpose to debate Schodt's scholarship. Yes, he is a scholar, and one of the best in this field, but that's not the point here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Separate from the word used for Murakami and Schodt, the quality of the references should be examined. For Good and Featured articles, Wikipedia wants sources that are progressively more reliable. When sources are marginal, ask whether the statements they support are important to the exposition. If they are, find better sources; if they're not, remove or reword the statements to avoid the need for those marginal sources. Aim for works that provide scholarship, rather than armchair sociology.
Reply The citations used are all of high reliability. Without a list of references you believe to be "armchair sociology," there isn't anything I can do about this issue. At another time, we can discuss my own credentials for making the choices I did, but not here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, notes about the Constitution of Japan related to censorship reference Kodansha; it seems more useful to reference the Constitution itself (see the article on it for a link to Wikisource in English).

Reply This puzzled me at first, since the Kodansha encyclopedia citation we used takes one precisely to the Japanese Constitution itself, but then I realized that you probably don't know the encyclopedia. I added some page references and clarified the issue, I hope. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The "Publications" section, prior to "Magazines," has no citations. Many of the statements could reasonably be challenged. The section is close to the border of what Wikipedia calls "original research."
Reply I agree. I did no work on this section, except for the Gegika section (which was completely rewritten and referenced). Several times on the discussion page, I've recommended that it be removed (except Gekiga) or moved to another article, but there has been no consensus on the issue. Future editors will have to take up this problem, since I will be making no further major additions or changes to the manga article. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Links need checking. The phrase "Mixx Entertainment/TokyoPop" contains two separate links to redirects that both lead to Tokyopop. Although it's not necessary to fix every indirect link in Wikipedia, I'd hope that editors aiming to bring an article to Good or Featured standing would make them all direct.
Reply. Fixed these.Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of these are minor points. A thorough proofreading is time-consuming and tedious, but it can address many of the issues I've raised. This article is interesting, informative, and accessible. I'd like to see you pick the nits and get it the recognition it deserves. Fg2 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions, everyone. They have been very helpful, and I regret that I wasn't able to use all of them. Future editors will doubtless find them very useful.
I will now no longer be making any further major additions or changes to this article. Back in September 2007, when Peregrine Fisher and I started to work on it, we had a list of topics and headings we wanted to upgrade. That list is now complete, and I believe we were successful in significantly improving the article by adding quality writing and references (we added over 200 solid, reliable references). But that job is done now, so it is now up to other people to continue to work on this entry.
The only advice I'd pass on is that dealing with the bibliography may be tricky if you start deleting references wholesale or without asking if they are mentioned in other references (e.g., in what is known as an "op. cit." = opus citandum reference).
As some of you have guessed, I am what Wikipedians sometimes call an "expert." It is not alway a term of praise on Wikipedia, where -- I'm saddened by this, actually -- experts are treated sometimes scornfully, sometimes with hostility, and sometimes with outright dislike. Some editors are exceptionally welcoming, but not all by any means. So this has been a mixed experience for me, sometimes good, but often not pleasant at all. I frankly doubt if I will do any more detailed editing on Wikipedia again. Too much hostile, pointless bickering, too much petty backbiting, and too many naive wannabes trying to call the shots about things they don't know. But I will say it has been interesting.
Good luck with this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply We've addressed many of these issues and concerns, but where do I describe them? Here? I'd like to comment immediately after the place each problem is mentioned. Please advise! Timothy Perper (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blood+

I've listed this article for peer review because significant work has been done in the article over the last view weeks and I think it has been significantly improved (see [1] for what it was like before). I'd like to get feedback on other potential improvements to be made and to see if it is ready to go from Start to B class as part of the over all goal of GA or Featured status later.

Thanks,

Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Ideas if you go for GA.

  • Include the manga, light novels, and video games in the infobox.
  • Genres should be alphabetized
  • If possible, find an image of just the logo to put in the infobox.
  • Make sure the lead section conform with guidelines at WP:Lead.
  • Article needs a reception section.
  • A slimmed down version of the major characters should be added to the character section of the main article.
  • Add a subsection in the character section named "Character types".
  • Found 9 red links. Consider making stubs for them or removing the link.
  • Some words used in the article are in the guideline Words to avoid.

(Duane543 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks! Will work on those items. Collectonian (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mewtwo

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to attempt to make this a feutured article, and having a group of others telling me the problems help! I'm not kidding, no matter how much I seem so. Anyone, yeah, just tell me what needs fixing with the article and what I can do to make it better.


Thanks,

- ~VNinja~ 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If you read this at the main WP:PR page, scroll up a tad and see the comments I make about the Name of Turkey article. Large chunks of this article are unreferenced. That's the first and best thing you can work on to improve it. --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belldandy

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've gone about as far as I can, and would greatly appreciate other opinions to help bring it up to GA status. I'm not quite sure where best to focus further efforts.

Thanks, Bilby (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

The plot sections need to be tightened up some. IMDB should not be used as a source. A lot of it appears to be unsourced, and sourcing is one of the prime requirements for GA or FA, so I would start there. Unlike with a series article, claims made about the character from the series must also be sourced to specific episodes, manga volumes, novels, etc. Himura Kenshin is a recent character GA that would be good to study to see how to tighten up and source. Collectonian (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Malkinann

Per Wikipedia:CITE#FULL, direct quotes (such as the ones from Susan J. Napier, who is different from Susan Napier the romance novellist) need to be to page number if at all possible. There also isn't much information about character merchandise, but that's perhaps a bit more incidental to the character than the scholarly and popular reception.-Malkinann (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happier if the general policy was to use Harvard in-line references, as that makes page numbers easier. :) I don't have the Napier book, but I'll pick it up next week to fix that. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I happen to have the book on hand at the moment (checked out from the university library), so I can look up the page numbers for you if you'd like. Collectonian (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virtua Fighter (anime)

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review. Needs an assessment since it was recently created.


Thanks, Ominae (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I mainly checked the first half of the article. Grammar is a pet peeve of mine, and something I am often bad at myself, so I looked at that.
  • I made some edits to Characters; see if they still agree with the general ideas. I might've missed other problems there.
  • I also wonder if there's a different way to say "[un]like his[or her] video game counterpart" in that section. I tried removing "video" in second and later occurences so that it would look a bit less repetitive, but I doubt that's the best solution.
  • I de-capitalized words like "Flying squirrel" and "Racing queen". If they are proper nouns or something, they are easily changed back.
  • I italicized some titles.
  • I wonder if Plot can be expanded a bit.
Peer review is not something I do often (my first, actually), so I hope my changes help you.
—an odd name 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Himura Kenshin

Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA article. Would like feedback and thoughts on ways it can be improved and any tweaks needed to get it ready for FA candidacy.

Thanks, Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the article is generally well-done and reasonably broad in scope. Second, while reading this piece I did encounter a few items which may be of help to you and your collaborators:

  • OVA - I didn't know what this meant-I recommend writing the abbreviation out the first time for newbie readers such as myself.
  • I would work on the prose, especially with an eye towards more exact wording. For example, see this excerpt from the "Background" section: "... killed all with the exception of Shinta, who is saved by Seijūrō. Seijūrō decides to adopt Shinta into his apprenticeship, and renames the boy "Kenshin" (with 'Ken' meaning 'sword' and 'Shin' meaning 'heart'), believing that 'Shinta' is not a fitting name for a swordsman.[22]"
Perhaps this would be clearer if it were recast like this: "...killed all except for Shinta, who is saved by Seijuro and renamed "Kenshin" as the name 'Ken' (sword) and 'Shin' (heart) where more fitting for a swordsman.
I changed this particular line, however the article would benefit from copyediting from a stylistic viewpoint.
  • On the same topic, sentences such as this one can be recast to eliminate redundancy: Various anime and manga publications have provided acclaim and criticism of Kenshin's character. Perhaps would read better like this: Kenshin's character has been met with mixed reviews within the anime and manga community.....specifically, I am referring to the word "various" which is unnecessary.
    • Within that vein: "Kenshin's desire is to protect people from danger without killing" can be cut slightly to: "Kenshin desires to protect people from danger without killing."
  • In the "Techniques" section, this phrase appears: "...and the ability to read through the movements of his opponents." What does "read through the movements of his opponents" mean? Further, in this instance, it may be clearer to use the genitive case: "opponent's movements" rather than "movements of his opponents."
  • Although it is good for the Lead section to provide a concise, scintillating version of the whole article, shy away from actually using the exact same text as in the "Plot Overview" section.
  • I find it useful to refer to Featured Content with a similar subject. There are several FAs in Himura Kenshin's Wikiproject, for example: Madlax. These can be a useful resource.
  • To conclude, the largest area for improvement that I see regards style and prose. Typically, I recommend League of Copy Editors, as they generally do a terrific job of polishing prose!

I hope this helped. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page with any questions. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll get to work on those and see if can get it copy edited :) Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made an attempt at reworking the lead. Is that looking better? Collectonian (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While the article as a whole is well organized, I see a couple paragraphs that could read more clearly than they currently do.

In the Creation and Conception section, the third paragraph needs work. (Was it based on an imperfectly translated source?) It has instances of bad grammar throughout ("as well as a simply structure", "changes he made was"), and though I'm currently fixing it as well as I can, it will at least needs looked over by the original editor to see if my rewording is accurate.

In the Background section, there are several ambiguous statements, a couple of which I found rather amusing. ("Both Kenshin and Tomoe get married"? Such a pity, I thought they would have made a good couple together.) Seijūrō also gets dropped out of the sky with no introduction or wikilink. Actually, that seems to be true of a lot of the characters. First mentions of characters, like first mentions of jargon, need to be given context for the reader unfamiliar with the series.

Speaking of things being dropped from the sky, the last sentence of the technique section segues with the grace of a brick to the back of the skull. (Right now it essentially reads "Kenshin learns an all powerful sword technique. Then dies.") I can tell a lot of effort was put into compressing that section to only describe his most important attributes, but I think an extra sentence or two of transition would serve us well there.

That's all I have the time to look for right now, but I may come back later. Fortunately, despite the writing needing a significant amount of improvement, the real effort, gathering information for the article, has already been done excellently. Good work, and good luck. --erachima talk 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried doing the statements that erachima commented. My only doubt is the balance of the in-universe information and the out-of-universe information.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)