Wikipedia:Peer review/Urusei Yatsura/archive1

Urusei Yatsura

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten the article from scratch to fix all the issues. The article is currently B class, and I am ultimately aiming for GA at this time. I am seeking feedback on the current state of the article to help me develop it further.

I'm still working on the soundtrack section. Also as a note on references, Furinkan.com/Rumic World is used for many of the citations. The site was judged to be a reliable source in This discussion

Thanks, Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• The parameters other_publishers and other_networks should be removed in place of referenced prose in the body of the article.

Removed. Not mentioned in the article currently due to a current lack of source

• All images need alternate text.

Done

Other than that, the article is well written and well sourced. 211.30.12.191 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro

Comments by Malkinann (talk · contribs)

Second image needs a decent caption - this supports the WP:NFCC criterion of having some commentary about the image in the article. I believe that tankobon is too jargonistic, and should be avoided. Needs a decent copyedit - there are lots of typos throughout the article and titles of series aren't in italics, weird use of capital letters and there is a constant use of the word 'constant'. Why is information about the demographics of the readership in 'production'? Surely this information would be better in reception?? Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree regarding tankōbon, it's used frequently in GA and higher articles. The typos and such have been fixed, as have the italics, and I've fixed the "constant" issue. Fixed the misplaced reception info. I've replaced the second image with a photo of one of the LP's from my personal collection.

Comments from Arsonal (talk · contribs)

• There is a broken ref and a link that needs disambiguating. Also check the automated review on the right.

Done

General

• Be careful of overlinking locations such as North America and overly general concepts such as Japanese culture.

Done, although I've left japanese Culture as I believe it's a useful link.

• Titles of print publications such as Animerica, Weekly Shōnen Sunday, Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation, etc. should be italicized. Also for Sabrina the Teenage Witch, etc.

Done. Unless I missed some...

• "English" should be capitalized throughout the article.

Done

• "Tv" and "Ova" should be fully capitalized.

Done

• There are places where space is missing between the end of a reference and the start of a new sentence.

Done, I think...

Infobox

• I may be able to help you getting an appropriate image and a more detailed manga release info. My university library apparently has the complete original volumes. I'll check it out when I get back from vacation.

I meant to do this before listing for peer review, clearly forgot :p Now using the first wideban cover until something else is found

• Instead of linking the numbers of episodes of the anime, use | episode_list = List of Urusei Yatsura episodes. Do the same for OVAs.

Fixed

Production

• Any reason why this is before Plot? The Manual of Style usually puts this later in the article.
• "Urusei Yatsuradid" needs a dividing space.

Both Fixed.

Media

• I believe all released need to use {{Nihongo}}.

I've tackled some of these points, I will have to address the others at another time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the issues have been fixed, although one or two I've taken a editorial view of. Unless there are further complaints, I believe this article may now meet the GA criteria. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the daughter article Urusei Yatsura (film series) have a mergeto template, but Urusei Yatsura has no corresponding mergefrom? Merging and splitting articles needs to be taken care of for the stability criterion of GA. Is it "John Thompson" writing for MTCG, or is it Jason Thompson? I think the English variant needs to be standardised too at some point, (uses -ise but with American dates) although this may not be an actual GA criterion, but more something somewhere else in the MOS. --Malkinann (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The film article has been restored by User:Nihonjoe, a decision which I'm not disagreeing with (especially as he has the best access to additional sources). I don't think stability is going to be an issue, the relevant content has been copied. I can't be of help regarding the "english variant" and consistency, that's one reason I'm not good at copyediting, I don't use either American English or British English, I use a mix of both ;) I've fixed John to Jason. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Lead - OVA should be spelled out the first time it is used. If a sentence starts with a number, I believe the number is supposed to be spelled out (i.e. 11 OVAs... -> Eleven original video animations (OVAs) and six theatrical movies followed...". Also agree, tankōbon volumes is perfectly acceptable, and is used in FA articles. "Extremely popular" seems overly enthusiastic without sourcing for that phrasing. Better to just note that it has received positive reception, without claims of popularity unless this can be supported by the article. The "dropped" note is unnecessary in the infobox, the prose should note this. Flagicons shouldn't be used in the infobox. Use <small>North America</small> or the like after each licensor instead. The episodes each director did should be left to the prose rather than the infobox, since each did a substantial number.

Plot - the series appears to be complete. Does the plot section accurately cover its major plot points, and the ending?

Media - there does not appear to be a separate manga chapter list, but there also is not a list in this article? It may be helpful for this particular series to a short explanation on the differences between the wideban, bunkoban, "My First Big" edition, and shinsoban editions, beyond volume count, would be useful. The Furinkan reference seems to discuss this fairly well. If sourcing is available, information on why this was done would also be good, particularly as there appears there was only a single "My First Big" volume? The prose should also mention any sourcable foreign language editions, briefly. (i.e. "Was/Is licensed for regional language releases in X....") How is "After completing the final episode, the staff began working on another Takahashi show, Maison Ikkoku which took over the same timeslot that Urusei Yatsura had occupied" relevant? As the film series have their own articles, the kanji/romaji should not be included in this article for the films, just use the English titles. Ditto the OVA releases.

Overall - Could use a quick copyedit to correct a few minor prose issues. For example, the opening (the multiple editions should be noted later, but not in the first two sentences):

Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら) is a manga series by Rumiko Takahashi that was published in Weekly Shōnen Sunday from 1978 to 1987 across 374 chapters. The chapters were then collected into tankōbon volumes, with multiple editions released.

->

Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら) is a manga series written and illustrated by Rumiko Takahashi that premiered in Weekly Shōnen Sunday in 1978 and ran until its conclusion in 1987. Its 374 individual chapters were collected and published in 34 tankōbon volumes.

References should be in numerical order. (i.e. [2][7] instead of [7][2]). All foreign language references need to have the language noted using the language= param, and a translated title provided with the trans_title param. For book sources, they should be properly capitalized. Such as Watching anime, reading manga: 25 years of essays and reviews -> Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews. Also, that source is missing basic information - publisher, ISBN, etc. Several of the Furikon and other web sources are missing their authors, though they are included on the websites. #4 for example, was written by K.J. "Keiji" Karvonen. It is also missing the year (1994) it was done.

Hope that helps :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful, but I'm absolutely shattered so these may take a few days for me to get to look at properly. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking up the issue on the manga list(s). I've managed to obtain information on and ISBNs of the original 34 tankōbon releases. I will attempt to find the rest. Arsonal (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jinnai (talk · contribs)

Overall it seems decent. Some things of note.

1. Combine the game and soundtrack sections into a "other media" type section - 1 paragraph sections are generally disliked unless their is nowhere else to reasonably combine it with.
2. Also I think several of those games should have famitsu scores. I would be shocked if none of them did. They may even have some additional info on their release (reception would be asking too much probably).
3. The last paragraph isn't really "reception" - its impact/legacy. On its own it might be a small paragraph, but combined with...
4. ...the lack of any of the impact & controversy on the "Beautiful Dreamer" I think that it could be put in its own section.陣内_Jinnai 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on a combination of comments regarding extra content, and there being plenty of other sources out there, I will keep working on the article over the next few months rather then rush it through to GA now. I'll work on the remaining tweaks and such as I go along. If anyone comes along any potential sources, be sure to let me know :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that File:Urusei Yatsura volume 1 tankobon cover.jpg is now in the top right hand corner of the article, how is the fair use case for File:Urusei Yatsura cover.jpg? Is the latter really needed now? --Malkinann (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Its no longer needed.Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. :) --Malkinann (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even notice it had been moved to the body of the article.Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Intro seems to put too much emphasis on publication details. We're told about multiple tankobon editions before we know stuff like it being, say, a romantic comedy? Massive misplacement of effort and material. For a lede, quotidian details like volume bibliographies is inappropriate; the impact and what it is are far more deserving of space.
• 'who provided extensive notes on the series to allow people to understand the many cultural references and jokes in the series that would normally be impenetrable for non-Japanese.' <-- graceless.
• 'The television series is credited with introducing the format of using pop songs as opening and ending themes in anime. ' This is very interesting! Expand on that; or alternately, this might be controversial and needs refs.

Which is fully referenced in the reception section, and isn't that controversial that it should also need to be referenced in the lead (which is a sumamary).

Gwern, this is also partially my fault - there was a listing of all the songs used by UY in this article, but it gave me reader fatigue and I moved it to the list of episodes, summarising it in this article as a simple count of how many opening and closing songs there were. --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'The chosen human player is Ataru Moroboshi, a lecherous High school student ' A bizarre and unexplained choice.

It may be, but thats the way it is, it's exactly that.

It needs explanation, if only to say there is no explanation. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'Despite the misunderstanding, Lum falls in love with Ataru and moves into his house.' What, she falls in love on the spot? Also, you use 'despite' way too much. Once suffices.

Pretty much, and yes, I don't claim to be a copy editor.

Easy enough to say something like 'Ataru touches her horns, and takes the occasion to propose to whomever; Lum instantly falls in love with him and insists on moving in'. As it is, the causality is unclear. 'falls in love' could be a very gradual process. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'Ataru's flirtatious nature persists despite Lum's constant attention and she attempts to stop him flirting, which result in Ataru receiving electric shock attacks from Lum as punishment.' Description of this as a running gag would not be amiss.

It's a plot summary, not an analysis of the content. It may be beneficial to talk about running gags, but not in that section

There is no difference. And it's a moot point anyway since you don't have an analysis section. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'The series began sporadic serialisation in 1978 in the manga anthology Shonen Sunday, and ended in 1987 after publishing 374 chapters.' Did it continue to 'began sporadic serialization' (inelegant prose aside) the entire run? Was Takahashi working on something else?

This is for further research. Takahashi has a habit of working on many things at once

• Also, what were the financial arrangements for Takahashi - surely UY laid the foundation of her famous wealth?

• For that matter, the plot section is very sketchy. One expects to at least see a mention of the ending.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, it's very episodic, theres no long running plot thread outside of the basic concept (see: Lupin III) Secondly, the anime has no ending, and while I don't think it has a proper ending, the end of the manga at least brings a degree of conclusion. However, I'm yet to fully read the manga so will address this later.

• Would be nice to fix the redlink Kazuo Yamazaki (director).

It would, got any info?

• What is the Rumic World exhibition? Sounds vaguely like a set-piece of exhibition like the Ghibli museum.

I believe it travelled Japan, but yes that sort of concept. This is possibly something that should be covered on Takahashi's page

• "The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917, " seriously abbreviate that. Book names shouldn't take half a line, and mentioning both authors by full name is likewise a misuse of space.

It's the full title, and incidentally the article title. And mentioning both authors is sensible.

Short names are perfectly acceptable. One says Hamlet, not The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke.. This is another example of the excessive space devoted to bibliographic information readers don't care about. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'Helen McCarthy viewed the series as "a Japanese Simpsons for its useage of domestic humour and make note of AnimEigo's attention to providing notes for those unfamiliar with Japanese culture' - dropped a quotation mark there?
• "absolutely deserves it's fan favourite status". - did they really' make that mistake?

You'll need to explain this

Ah, I see, wrong its. --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes.

• 'Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation,' as before.

see above

• 'highlighting their harmonious resolution to the chaos in comparison to Urusei Yatsura's "out of control" ending to each episode.' UY's what? Maybe I missed the explanation in the article, but having never seen UY, I have no independent way of knowing what the heck Napier is talking about here.

In Jeannie and Bewitched, Samantha and Jeannie succeed in pulling the wool over their SO's boss, and all returns to normal, thanks to magic. I suppose in UY, (never seen it) episodes end with Lum chasing Ataru, who's chasing his ex-gf, in the kind of 'normal chaos' mayhem I've seen in Ranma? :/ --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's alot crazier then Ranma :) But it's a quote, I'm not really sure how to address it, aside from adding other sources discussing that point.

This would go well in the plot section, along with your comments about the episodic-ness. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

The plot section is for plot, not discussion of it, that goes in other sections

• 'Fred Patten writing in Watching anime, reading manga: 25 years of essays and reviews credits the series with being the first program to inspire translations from fans.' Ditto ditto. Also, I am skeptical - American fans translated nothing before 1981? I know the early '80s were the birth of fansubbing, but '81 for the first one seems a bit late.

Unless you happen to have an expert source contradicting this, theres no reason to doubt it.

• Article is light on images. The cover art of the first volume is fine, but the only other pic is a LP album cover? The reader is left with no visual gestalt of UY. (Pardon me for saying, but both images are of pretty crappy artistic value; surely there's some later, higher-quality, group shots.) My rule of thumb is, if a reader can't come away recognizing allusions & parodies of the series in question, the article has a long way to go. The reader of this article will recognize only the electrical shocks and the bikini/horns; I'm sure there's more than just that.

The article should be light on images, and both are relevant. The cover and album both show the UY artstyle, and a group shot should be saved for the character article. although theres room to change the album image to something anime style

• In general, the article is very heavy on quotidian publishing details. Save that tripe for a bibliography. Are readers really informed by, or care about, that the first 5 movies were licensed & released by X, and #6 by Y?

Well yes actually. Publishing details are considered important information for an article talking about the series. Are you actually suggesting leaving this info out is beneficial? There was a trim of excessive info, but noting who released what where is relevant information. Of course it's informative

No, they are not important. Certainly not so important as to use up half of the lede; with their references, they use something like 1/3 the space! A reader will come out knowing all sorts of dates and ISBNs and kanji - and precious little about the actual series. To quote Feynman, "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird...I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something & knowing something." --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

Of course publishing details are important, the article requires such details to be broad in it's coverage and that includes who published what and when. I suggest familiarising yourself with our GA's and most recent FA (Tokyo Mew Mew, as well as both our FAC's. The simple fact is that such details are relevant and important. If the reader wants to know them doesn't factor into it, others will and are entitled to be informed. The fact that the franchise is large and with multiple publication details only mean it needs to be covered more, not less. As for taking up half the lead, thats not a reason to reduce the content given that the lead is a summary. While your comments are appreciated, I suggest taking this publication details discussion elsewhere if you feel strongly about it. But don't expect much luck, especially as it's in WP:MOS-AM Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A review like this - http://timmaughanbooks.com/2010/02/01/guest-post-hypercrazy-triptastic-mindfcuk-oshiis-beautiful-dreamer-1984/ - gives, in 2 or 3 paragraphs, a better understanding of UY than this entire article.

I don't think that is something to be proud of. --Gwern (contribs) 23:06 2 February 2010 (GMT)

Yes, a review. Wikipedia is not a review site, and not here to provide in depth analyses. Your comparison is completely meaningless. It might make for some nice quotes in the reception section but it is not an example of how to write a wikipedia page, nor should it be. Not covering the details is not covering the franchise, and you are suggesting we turn this article into another badly written one rather then improve it. I suggest you don't contribute to peer review if you are going to make comments like "I don't think that is something to be proud of", you really aren't acting in good faith with comments like that. It's obvious that you are the only one who thinks this is a problem , and you haven't provided a compelling argument to disrupt consensus, and I suggest you don't bother wasting your time. You are going to need a project wide discussion to change this, and as noted the article only follows what our recognised content does and is required to do. Either take it to WT:Anime and challenge it in general, or don't. But don't clog up peer review with disagreements over how we write articles in general, this isn't the place. I'm not wasting any more time discussing this point here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Finally, do you make use of the 1993 Animerica interview with Takahashi? Skimming over my copy, looks like it could help. Email me if you want it. --Gwern (contribs) 15:13 30 January 2010 (GMT)

Added some quick comments. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the promised 'critical commentary' for File:Urusei Yatsura Music Capsule.jpg? How does it help the reader understand UY in a way that the first tankobon image doesn't? I feel it would be better to reinstate the OVA cover with an appropriate caption than to have the CD cover. --Malkinann (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How does the ova cover help? If you wish to illustrate the anime, another image would be more suitable then that random ova cover. Such as one of the movies. I don't recall a request for critical commentary, much less a promise. Alt text on the other hand... Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no critical commentary about the "music capsule's" cover in the same way that there is for All Nippon Air Line's cover, which is for identification and critical commentary. When you upload something and put in the fair use rationale 'this has critical commentary', then you are effectively promising that there is a RS commenting on that particular image, and that it's used or will be used shortly in the article. As we must sadly strive for minimal usage, I'm not sure that the music capsule image can be justified as the art style is manga-based, and there's no critical commentary presented. An OVA cover or another anime-sourced picture would at least show the anime art style and assist in identifying the subject of the article for people who haven't seen the UY manga art style before. --Malkinann (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I can agree that an anime image would be more suitable in this case, but I don't think the previous image is it. That said I don't currently have a replacement. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodo, might be something to think about before GAN. :) I'm a little surprised that excessive fair use images aren't a quickfail, but that's probably because GA is not just for fiction articles. ;) --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GA is going to be a way off I think, even when the copyediting type stuff is done, sources keep appearing :) Not the worst thing that ever happened to an article! Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am closing this peer review, as due to several requests plus initial research, it's clear that the article can be expanded in several areas, which will require another copyedit session even after all the raised points are addressed. With several points yet to be addressed due to time, it makes sense to develop the article further and have a proper copyedit done on it once that has been achieved. Once the article is ready, I will start a new PR. Any other suggestions, links or such can be posted on either the article talk page or my own user page at your discretion. Thank you for your comments.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)