Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the current featured list criteria. It is well-sourced, well-written, well-formatted, and the episodes are all of an appropriate length per WP:MOSTV. It has undergone a recent peer review, and all issues from it have been addressed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment I made a few tweaks to the lead, and spot-checks of the episode summaries (I don't have time to go through them all) indicate that they are well-written and generally clear for even a reader who doesn't know about the topic. My only comment is that the alt text covers information that cannot be verified by looking only at the image. Describe it, do not add things such as names. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) I'm not sure I understand on the alt image - its hard to describe without noting it has the main character and her appearance? Still new to those, though, so may be misunderstanding how they should be. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, describe the image's appearance as you would over the phone to a friend. I'm learning on the fly, too, so I understand your difficulty :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The basics are right. One extra thing Wikipedia imposes, though: verifiability. As per WP:ALT#Verifiability, the alt text shouldn't contain the phrases that can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image. Generally speaking proper names should be removed (except for "TOKYO MEW MEW" which is in the image). Also, the following words or phrases are suspect and should be rewritten or removed: "main", "'cat' pose", "robot", "weapon". A relatively small point: I'd omit mention of the pink double border and the scripted font, unless those are important for some reason, as per WP:ALT#Brevity. Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay...changed it up to be more general. How is that? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's a lot better, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay...changed it up to be more general. How is that? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The basics are right. One extra thing Wikipedia imposes, though: verifiability. As per WP:ALT#Verifiability, the alt text shouldn't contain the phrases that can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image. Generally speaking proper names should be removed (except for "TOKYO MEW MEW" which is in the image). Also, the following words or phrases are suspect and should be rewritten or removed: "main", "'cat' pose", "robot", "weapon". A relatively small point: I'd omit mention of the pink double border and the scripted font, unless those are important for some reason, as per WP:ALT#Brevity. Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, describe the image's appearance as you would over the phone to a friend. I'm learning on the fly, too, so I understand your difficulty :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good, though I didn't evaluate foreign-language refs for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues were addressed in the peer review. My only recommendation is to use the trans_title parameter for Ref 2 as well. All refs should also be consistent in using either human readable dates or ISO dates. Arsonal (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh, missed that one! Trans title added. Thanks :) Also fixed the remaining dates that hadn't been converted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support seeing that grammar is fine according to Dabomb and that all the issues were solved.Tintor2 (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images There's not much of a reason for File:Tokyo Mew Mew DVD.jpg. It's not aiding critical commentary (such as comments about the packaging of the home video releases) and is really just decoration. Our understanding of the subject would not be significantly impinged by its removal, in my opinion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a normal part of any episode list to have an image representing the episodes, in this case the first DVD, same as any other media list (chapter lists have the first volume, DVD lists have either a season set or the first volume). I see no reason to remove the image. It meets WP:NONFREE and is no different from an infobox image, just that lists have no infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with David Fuchs. The image is decorative, and the fact that other articles use invalid images shouldn't justify it here. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every other FL episode list has an image, which would seem to speak to its appropriateness. Without any image, it would get pinged for having none at all. No box set was released for this series in Japan nor in English, so that leaves the first DVD cover to be a representative image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, most FLCs don't have their images checked. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the disagreement about the issue, does the list have any other issues? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There don't seem to be any. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the disagreement about the issue, does the list have any other issues? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, most FLCs don't have their images checked. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every other FL episode list has an image, which would seem to speak to its appropriateness. Without any image, it would get pinged for having none at all. No box set was released for this series in Japan nor in English, so that leaves the first DVD cover to be a representative image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with David Fuchs. The image is decorative, and the fact that other articles use invalid images shouldn't justify it here. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a normal part of any episode list to have an image representing the episodes, in this case the first DVD, same as any other media list (chapter lists have the first volume, DVD lists have either a season set or the first volume). I see no reason to remove the image. It meets WP:NONFREE and is no different from an infobox image, just that lists have no infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.