Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Featured article candidates/2007

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga | Featured article candidates
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 16:08, 2 January 2008.

List of Trinity Blood episodes

edit

I believe this list now meets the qualifications to be a featured list candidates. All of the issues brought up in its previous failed FLC have been corrected. The list is stable and well sourced, with through episode summaries (without being excessive) and full coverage of TV airings and the DVD releases in various regions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - the second sentence needs to be sourced (ANN is fine). Episode summaries need to be cleaned up. Characters need to be linked to their respective entry on the character list, and the last seven or so episodes are too long. Excise the extraneous plot details and summarize the episodes more throughly. For your references, use {{cite web}} for the ones that do not use it. As per below, the DVD lists are usually included at the relevant media list or at the main article, but I won't stake an oppose on it. Change the color as well to something more neutral; gray for instance. A DVD image (or collection if available) would be nice as well. All these are pretty manageable though. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the source on the second sentence, fixed the two references that weren't using cite web, and fixed the color and headers. I've started working on the episode summaries and the wikification of characters.
I'm curious about the thing on DVD lists though. I've seen it both way and I've been putting them on the episode pages for all anime and show articles I work on. That's my personal preference since the DVDs are collections the episodes and if someone is looking at the episode lists, to me, that would be where they would most expect to see purchasing options. It would seem odd to me to have a DVD image without a DVD list too. ;-) The anime/manga MOS is kinda ambiguous about it since it includes the list of episodes in the media section and the featured lists seem to deal with it three ways: the way I have it in TB, having the DVD info in the main article, or having it merged into the season table (where there is one). AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's vague enough to allow editor discretion in terms of where to put it. I don't find it is necessary, and believe it is more relevant to the media list rather than the episode list, which is per its namesake, concentrated on the episodes. Mention of the DVDs is fine for comprehensiveness purposes. Anyhow, all the sources still need to be put in a {{cite web}} format, including url, title, publisher, and accessdate at the minimum. Also, add the romanji in for the episode titles per previous precedent. This can help you if you have problems with that. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, I thought I'd gotten all of the refs. I think I got the rest this time. :P I used the site to do the romanji...hopefully I got it right. :) Also finished shortening up the episode summaries and wikifying the character names. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superb work. I can happily support. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would never have thought the titles needed sourcing as we don't have to source the series title or film titles or television episode titles. However, I have put the sources on the column headers. The general references thing just looks ugly to me and doesn't really work to me as they only cover the episode titles not anything else in the article. Hopefully that will be good instead of having to do the general references? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of doing the "general" section is to separate the references for the key content of the list, and because inline citations for them look ungainly, and are for specific points of information instead of twenty or so odd items. It's how certain lists have very few inline citations because they merely cite a "general" section. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I can see that side. I'm just so anal that for me, the inline is more accurate. If it has to use general, though, in order to go up in assessment, I guess I'll have to get used to it :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was always under the impression that the plot details didn't need to be sourced, as citing the episode itself as a source would feel redundant. The general references provide very brief summaries of the episodes, and the list wouldn't be comprehensive if a full plot summary wasn't given. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - that's a really good point :)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.

List of RahXephon media

edit

Wikipedia:Featured list criteria

    • (a) All episodes and CDs have links. We have many anime media lists, but this one has a more worldwide view than most, since it lists media and broadcasts in languages other than English, as well as English editions from regions other than North America. Parts of the lists have been copied to other language Wikipedias.
    • (b) The list is not likely to grow much more, since it includes all existing materials within its criteria.
    • (c) Both inline citations and and general references.
    • (d) Hard to find something disputable here.... Episode order is as aired, and the interlude is placed in the middle, in the mid-May episode break.
    • (e) Recently populated the episode list with episode articles. Not much more to add to this one. Only foreseeable additions are high-def releases and new broadcasts.
    • (f) I leave the structure evaluation up to others. It's "hierarchially" sectioned with interpage links.
  2. MoS
    • (a) Has a lead. Feel free to change it or critique it
    • (c) ToC is long, but has not reached the auto-review limit. Not all headings are ToC-level.
  3. Fair use rationales for all images. Should there be a CD cover there as well, or is the number of fair use images high enough?
Fixed. All are now 98% width.
Have the 26 "main" episodes in one continuous table, not broken up because of the special episodes. If anything, have the recap episode in the same table with the other 26.
It's broken up by episode type. I sorted by story chronology, which I believe is a reasonable list order.
The list breaks have been removed, and the episode list now has uniform columns. I kept the colouring and order, though.
The info on "Title references" on the episode list could be removed. They don't contribute much where they are, and since there are episode articles anyway... have them there. It'd be a little reason to read the article, I think.
Ah, yes. This was a holdover from when the list had no episode articles. Moved into episodes.
Are the colors in the "episode length table" supposed to be a color scheme? If so, what aren't you using them? Also, the ep. length could be incorporated elsewhere, so the table is not really necessary.
It explains the colour scheme used in the list a'la List of Sopranos episodes and shows the different episode types. I am using the colour scheme. It could be possible to combine the list all into one table and have different line colours in it, but that looked ugly. So I went for split-up tables.
I made a second try for a combined table, and it works better now.
There's two entries on the RahXephon Interlude OVA: one inside the episode list, the other under "Other anime." I'd suggest removing the one on the list, since it was an extra with the PS2 game.
I thought it would be useful to show that the OVA fits somewhere in the middle, as an interlude suggested by its title; the OVA section can explain more than the list entry can, and I don't think it warrants its own article.
Not really important but, wouldn't "Printed media" be a better title than "Books"?
Good idea. After all, even though it only lists books, that section also explains about the initial serial run in a magazine, not a book.
A table's not really necessary for the "Theme songs", is it?
Well, it could be a point list... What do other people think?
That's it, for now. So, I'd say: Conditional Support.--Nohansen 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somewhat loosely related to the list, do we really need individual episode articles for this series? I don't think it's a FLC requirement, but they seem to have been created for it? -- Ned Scott 07:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you neutral as to the featuring the list? I could go both ways for many of the articles, really. I don't want this to turn into a replacement for DVD liner notes with trivia galore. But some of them definately should have articles, and maybe all. What they give instead of only a list:
      • Both director and writer, which for some episodes in particular are notable and referred to in other articles. The credits that appear on some database sites are also wrong.
      • Links to the episodes on other sites like TV.com and IMDb.
      • Room for specific references related to that episode.
      • Reception information that is specific to that episode. (I allready know of such, particularly for the first episodes, the last episodes, Kyoja Circuit, Child Hood's End, Blue Friend, off the top of my head)
      • RahXephon is thick with foreshadowing and arc points that can be noted in a non-speculative way.
      • Guest cast. Not particularly interesting for the most part, so that's not a reason to keep in itself.--GunnarRene 09:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing: Locations. The plot summary should not be the majority of the article in my view. It should have a concise summary and focus on out-of-universe stuff and references forward and backward. --GunnarRene 09:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really consider it a factor for this FLC if there are episode articles or not, but I just wanted it to be noted that episode articles are certainly not required for an FL. I haven't come to a conclusion on the FLC yet, but I just wanted to note the episode thing while it was on my mind. -- Ned Scott 09:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the finest anime lists I've seen. Better than some other FLs. - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Romaji titles need to be fixed though. "Futari no machi" → "Futrai no Machi"--SeizureDog 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems nice and meets all parts of WP:FL?. A good looking list. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically? Which image(s) do you object to? Have you read the fair use rationales?
    • Also note that it even has a free/liber image in it; which is more than most other media lists will have for several decades.--GunnarRene 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Renata is counting images. This interpretation of FUC#3 was overwhelmingly shot down at the fair use discussion. But Renata will not drop the objection unless the images are removed. Jay32183 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, proportion of reproduction, that is how much of the work is reproduced, would be an "image-counting" objection of the valid sort, but just counting the number of images per article is not. Since this is an animated series with about 12 (and sometimes 24) images per second that adds up at least 15 000 unique images per episode (OP and ED excluded) at a much higher resolution than what I have uploaded. So I guess the objection fails then.--GunnarRene 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:07, 1 June 2007.

Madlax

edit

This one has been sitting on the FAC a while. I'd like to get some fresh eyes on it (Old nom) Raul654 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — A very good piece of writing. Excellent article. (Ibaranoff24 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. I've made a few minor adjustments, but notably tackled the themes section a bit. I commented out the section on Elenore's loyalty for now; while that's certainly a plot element, I'm unsure if that's really a "theme" so to speak, and the ref'ed review also takes it pretty factually. Also, I removed the qualifier about "Although Madlax does not depict obvious lesbian relationships;" it's possible my recollection is faulty, but since at least "relationship" as in "one night stand" is so strongly implied in at least one episode (Specifically, Vanessa/Madlax while one and/or both is insane around ep. 14 or so?) that saying "not obvious" is misleading. It's not confirmed, yes, but it's there. (Feel free to correct me if I'm off base?)
Also, question. ADV Films is sometimes italicized in this article, sometimes not. My understanding is that companies doesn't have to be italicized as per MoS:T, but I didn't make any changes yet (maybe it means it as in "The ADV Films release" which could maybe be italicized?). Someone else want to comment? SnowFire 06:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had my doubts about the loyalty part myself but decided to let a more objective reader judge its relevance... I fixed the ref you've blanked by commenting the section out. :) And you are right about the lesbian part, though "obvious" in this context meant hardcore yuri-hentai sort of depiction. ^^ As for the ADV Films, AFAIK it shouldn't be italicized anywhere, meaning that I probably overlooked several instances of it during cleanup... --Koveras ☭ 08:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. I think "explicit" is the word you're looking for. Anyway, I went through and tried to phrase parts of the lead better as suggested beforehand as well as taking out the somewhat misleading statement about "factions" I complained of earlier on the talk page. Unfortunately, the current phrasing doesn't really allow for a logical spot to mention the mystery/psychological thriller genre elements. It is listed in the infobox on the side, but that would be nice to add back in, if someone can figure out a way that doesn't add to the current slightly longish length.
I'm still not a huge fan of the entire first paragraph of the themes section, though I still more blame the show more than the article (it would probably not be NPOV to say "There are none! This show is ridiculous!"). I gave it a bit of a runthrough; comments welcome. My edit unfortunately removed the bit about "one critic who ironically defined as "pseudo-existentialistic" (Margaret yabbering about good and evil) due to the cited reviewer talking more about the last episodes as a group, not Margaret's particular conclusion, but any chance to slip that comment back in would be good and help be a NPOV and cited phrasing of "this show, especially the last few episodes, is amazingly pretentious." I may work up my courage and attempt to watch the final episode again to see if I can do any further tweaking.
Aside from that first paragraph of the themes section (which is a tricky issue), the rest of the article looks fine. SnowFire 02:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bring this up (as it doesn't concern only or primarily you), but could you please be a bit more careful with the refs? ^^ When you delete a ref in one section, it's blanked in all. %) As for your edits, I'll try to get the deleted bits you mentioned back in... --Koveras ☭ 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry about that. I really was checking after missing that one before, but apparently still missed that one. SnowFire 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
I feel the article is well written with a lot of good information regarding the series it all it's context. Regarding theme, I can see that it's tricky could you potentially say something to the extent: The theme is fairly difficult to mark out or something like that. Obviously Madlax isn't a very black and white Anime when it comes to theme, other than war and the concept of good and evil. But I'm sure Human nature still could be considered a theme element. --67.177.36.225 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) However, statements like "the topic is quite difficult" are so not liked by the editors here unless there are three external sources that state that verbatim. ^^ I, too, think that Madlax is extremely complex and rich on themes but, alas, I'm still working on putting everything together in one big bad article somewhere out there... --Koveras ☭ 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did some rewording on the second and last paragraphs of "Themes". I think they read better now; comments welcome. I also removed and/or rephrased all the weasel content I found (SnowFire already did most of the work though). Other than that the article looks good to me and I believe it deserves its star.Kazu-kun 07:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Featured_article_candidates/2007&oldid=142478403"