Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Lupin III

previous PR

Kanon

Previous peer review

This article has gone through much revision in recent months and achieved Good Article status in January. I am looking to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon, and would like to know how to improve it more.--十八 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GunnarRene
  • Should link to Lycèe Trading Card Game
I'll get on that.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's been GA rated and is comprehensive enough to be A (more than the Air article), but has a few problems that might undo the GA rating:

    • Livejournal and forum posts used as sources.
This is merely because that information cited in those source could not be easily found in other places, but the information is still very true. I'll try to do some sorting out and find some other sources to use.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is inadequate: It should summarize the main points of the article rather than serve as mostly a release history.
The main points...Going off the TOC, we have Plot, Setting, Themes, Gameplay, Characters, Release and Sales, Reception, Adaptations, and Music. The Plot, Setting, Themes, and Characters most likely do not belong in the lead, or am I wrong? Gameplay is lightly touched upon, so that's there. While there is nothing on the Music in the lead, the lead is composed primarily of Release and Sales and Adaptations because there isn't really much else to put about the other sections.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do. Move some of the release details into the release section, and keep less detailed info in the lead. For example, exact release dates belong in the release section, not in the lead unless it's a particularly notable day like September 11 or Christmas Eve. You absolutely need to say something about the setting, plot, themes, characters and reception in the lead, without having to go too far into detail. Those things are the things that set it apart from other works. As for the music, you don't need to say much. Perhaps just state the number of soundtracks along with the other release info. In my view, the lead does not need to be equally balanced regarding each section length, but it has to summarize the article, and it needs to be equally NPOV. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do the secondary characters have severly in-universe articles?

Wait, are you talking about the individual character articles themselves, or the short summaries in this article? If it's the former, then I'd say that's not the concern of this article. For the latter, you can't really describe the characters without getting in-universe, or am I wrong?--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second. Be aware that on Featured Article review, daughter articles will also be scrutinized. It might be good to proactively reduce the secondaries to a list and reduce the amount of information. See {{plot}} and Wikipedia:Fair use for some reasons why. WP:FICTION is also relevant here. Some in-universe is good, but not so much. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of source is hentai.co.uk? I can't find an "about" section even.
This was one of the original sources on this page. I believe the site serves many functions, but also gives information on hentai games, such as Kanon.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need more information about who publishes it, and who writes on it. Without such information, it can't be relied on.--GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anime Densetsu seems like a site that hosts reviews written by anonymous, unpaid, users. WP:RS?
    • Why that geocities reference?
I've removed them.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sales into reception, preferably.
I'll get on that.--十八 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the prose could use some work before a Featured Article request, but it's understandable as it is - seemed better than the Air article. --GunnarRene 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the points about the sources that the article uses...I suppose I could remove all the sources and information taken from those sources if you are saying they shouldn't be there.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon

Previous peer review

We're looking to nominate this for Good Article sometime soon. Are there any problems we should clear up beforehand? In particular, does the reception section look okay? Are the other various sections well-explained? Is it generally clear what we're doing here? :) Thanks for your time. --Masamage 02:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image:Sailor Senshi2.png is high resolution and does not have a detailed fair use rationale. Shrink it to no more than 400px high. Image:Smlogo.png and Image:Sailor Moon English logo.jpg have no fair use rationales at all, and they are also unsourced. ShadowHalo 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, thank you! I totally forgot about the image-work. I'll get that done this afternoon when I'm on my own computer. --Masamage 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I shrunk the Senshi image, added the Fair Use stuff for everything, and now we're working on hunting down sources for the logos. --Masamage 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at cult television, Sailor Moon is listed as an example of cult TV - if we could reference that and add it into reception, then maybe it might cut down on some of the confusion of the bit where Sailor Moon is popular, yet unpopular. Do we need to expand on the whys and wherefores of Sailor Moon being compared with Barbie and Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers? Anne Allison's chapter in particular discusses MMPR as a success localisation story compared to PSSM. From hanging around GA/R for a while, I can say that sections without any inline citations are looked upon badly.-Malkinann 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some suggestions:

  • In the lead, in the last paragraph, video games is linked as [[video games]], when it should be linked as [[video game]]s. The word tokusatsu is linked, but not explained; you did well explaining where the term "Sailor" originates.
  • This article needs to go through copyediting to remove weasel words, such as the word "many" in the last paragraph in the lead; just how many are there?
  • In the "Story" section, you introduce Usagi Tsukino without presenting her as the main protagonist. I know she is, but that doesn't mean everyone will. Try to start the section from an out of universe perspective, such as "Sailor Moon's story begins with the main heroine..."
  • In the beginning of the Characters section, knowing that they are in order of appearance may be considered trivia that does not necessariy need to be known. The next thing said is to check the individual character articles, but all the names are linked and bolded, so this is obvious without this notice; the western-order of names notice has been phased out of most articles and it's become common (especially with the WP:MOS-JP) to name Japanese names in western ordering, so this too I think can be taken out. Also, bullets make it look too listy, and lists tend to be looked down upon in potential GA articles. There are two alternatives: 1) Write in a paragraph or two where you go through all the main characters by name and what they do, or 2) Write it in ;[[Character Name Here]]: format and expand some to make it more readable and less listy.
  • In the manga section, the phrase "nearly a dozen" is used; try to be as specific as you can get; again, avoid weasel words. Next, you link Nakayoshi; point out that it's a shōjo manga magazine. While I realize there is a main article for the manga, the manga was still the source material and thus should be a worthwhile section on this page. First, it's best not to leave lone sentences, as is with the end of this section (which is also missing a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi"). Possibly try to expand this section a bit more. I say this since the Anime section below it is much larger, yet the manga came first and thus should be of more focus.
  • In the Anime section, the phrase, "Sailor Moon has since become one of the most famous anime properties in the world." is unsourced; either tag with {{fact}} or find a source; otherwise remove it. In the third paragraph, the word "numerous" is used; be specific. You're missing a comma in this paragraph in the final sentence between "North America" and "only"; copyedit the article for grammar as well as with spelling. The next sentence, "All of Sailor Moon was animated traditionally" seems odd to me; possibly reword it. There are 5 links in this section that do not have pages, all of them people. I'm sure with a series this popular there is at least a minor amount of info somewhere on them, possibly at Anime News Network or the Japanese wiki I find is always a good resource. GA and FA articles should have very little red linked pages, or none at all. Consider making stubs for all the red linked pages in this article.
  • In the English adaptations section, there are two unsourced lines; GA articles should have none of these.
  • In External links, the {{ja icon}} should be placed at the end of the link.
  • This article is specifically deficiant in categories. I know of at least 5-10 that would work well. Try to look at other articles that have similar genres and try to include as manga categories as possible. This makes the scope of an article look greater and more important.
  • Lastly, the number of inline citations is centered in the Reception section, with only 9 of the 24 being used in the article; there are sections without citations that need them, though I believe this has already been adressed.

Take care of all these things, put it through some rigorous copyediting, and the article should improve greatly.--十八 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowee... Thanks for the hints! We'll get right on them. Good luck with Strawberry Panic!. -Malkinann 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've been pluggin' away at this. Let's see what we've got.
  • Fixed everything you mentioned in the lead, story, and character sections. The character bits look weird in this format; one long, skinny line each. No more info can be removed, and I hesitate to add much more; what would you suggest?
  • Expanded the manga section and removed its weasel words. Does it need anything more? I also disagree about adding that comma. :P Some comma uses are required, some are forbidden, and some are a matter of taste.
  • Fixed almost everything in the anime article. I ended up just relegating most of the redlinked people to the anime page itself and leaving them out here. I also really don't want to replace the word 'numerous' with something more specific, because just about every song was written by two or three people, and hunting down all the overlap would be an absolute nightmare. Not sure what to do about that.
  • I believe I have some sources for the English adaptations section and will plug them in.
  • Fixed the external links thing.
  • Category:Sailor Moon is in a ton of categories, so we just put this one into it. Is that not the way to do things?
Thanks very much for your input! --Masamage 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply; for some reason I didn't see the update.
  • Re: Characters; I agree, which is why I suggested you add more to the characters section than just one liners. I've done this before in the Kanon and Air (visual novel) articles, so I don't think it's too much to ask for a little bit of expansion. It would also be more useful for the readers who don't want to leave this article to learn more, but having read enough feel satisfied with what is supplied.
  • My suggestion for a comma between "completed" and "Takeuchi" had nothing to do with taste; a comma should be there because due to the way the sentence is worded, it's more natural to pause at "completed".
  • Re: Anime; all right, it's fine then to keep "numerous" if nothing else will fit. I'm just saying, it might come up again in the future with a different reviewer.
Final note: A lot of good work has been done, but it still needs work. I think I have exhausted my reviewing abilities for this article as I beleive I've adressed all the salient points for a GA promotion. Perhaps try to get another neutral editior who is involved with WP:Anime to add suggestions.--十八 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. :) I'll take a whack at expanding the character descriptions. --Masamage 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] <-- This may be where we talk about how, with the anime, they are correctly termed series(es) as opposed to seasons, as this has come up on Talk:Sailor Moon once or twice, maybe we should find something to cite this.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The series/season reference is actually the Wikilink itself, somewhere in there, to an article explaining the difference and the tendancy to misuse the terms. --Masamage 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sure? clicking on metaseries gives me "The series Tenchi Muyo! and Sailor Moon have been comics, multiple TV series, and movies, but they do not have a rigid single continuity. Though the latter does have Continuity within the same form of media.", which doesn't explain it to me, and clicking on seasons gives me an idea that each 'cours' of Sailor Moon should be only 13 episodes long, which clearly isn't the case! -Malkinann 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rar, it's the second one, but it's been modified since I last looked at it. The relevance is not as clear now. :/ --Masamage 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a {{clarifyme}} on that part because it's come up on the talk page a couple of times. If we can find a reference, then we could put it on the TV program article. -Malkinann 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saikano

General peer review request on behalf of User:Saikano for the article Saikano. He'll be by to explain what he needs input on. --GunnarRene 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A general review request.--GunnarRene 14:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated review here. --GunnarRene 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
saikano...saikano is..hoow can i put it...?...specal type of anime. the emotional aspect of this is depressing.this anime is depressing. i cryed all through this anime. there was things unforseen in it.

i just love this anime. it a sci-fi soap opara like anime. its been months and i am still depressed. it holds on to you and wont let go. it is currently ranked the best anime ever for good reason.I loved it!--Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can you go through the automated review and address those points first? --GunnarRene 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section tells absolutely nothing about the plot - even one or two sentences would be good. The 'critical reviews' section needs to be in prose, rather than a table. The comma is rather over used. As a whole, the article desperately needs citations, especially the "speculation about possible foes." The production section should be more than a list of names. (Who funded it, if there were any controversies in production, etc.) Sometimes, the tone is a little unencyclopaedic. -Malkinann 06:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

saikano starts out in winter as shuji talks about his girlfriend in the past tense. He finds her bag picks up the Animal Club jurnal and read's it. then he has a flashback. now i am 95% positive this took place in episode 12 because he walk did the same thing. Then the story begains...its the summer time with shuji & chise walking up hell hill.--Lolicon3043910 17:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's lovely that you enjoy this anime, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Can you address the points that I've brought up? If you're having trouble converting your 'reviews' table to prose, Serial Experiments Lain and Excel Saga both have good 'Reception' sections that you can read and try and mimic the style of. -Malkinann 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse

  • Otaru-shi: link Otaru, Hokkaidō
  • "has a bitter tongue" - uncommon metaphor in English, rephrase
  • Image:Saiweapon.JPG says it is public domain. Highly unlikely, considering it seems to be a screenshot.
  • The plot section only describes the set-up, not the actual plot. I can't tell for sure (another issue), but I wouldn't be surprised if all this - the love declaration, the war, and the conversion of Chise into a weapon - happened in the first episode. What happens in the rest of the series?
  • We are shown battles ... We do not find out ...- Don't use the first person plural like this. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
  • The War section is full of unsourced speculation. See Wikipedia:Attribution
  • The Characters section seems to need another spoiler warning
  • The Manga section only talks about the plot, rather than publication details. It also says it follows the anime plot - but you haven't given us much of the anime plot.
  • The Soundtrack section is just a bunch of words to me. Are they song titles? How about a translation?
  • Put some text in the reviews section, rather than the final grade. What did the reviewers actually like and dislike?
  • Trivia sections are usually looked down upon in featured article candidacies; try to work those items into the main text instead

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Panic!

As the major contributor to this article, I want it to be the best it can be. It recently passed Good Article status, and I want to see if the article can be improved to Featured Article status, or at least A class before it can become an FA. Any comments on how to improve the article any more are welcome. --十八 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other articles do you have that are about SP!? It's a bit hard to navigate between all of them atm, I think. WP:ANIME can give an A-class assessment for SP!. -Malkinann 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Category: Strawberry Panic! which can facilitate the navigation, but other than that, there are these articles: List of Strawberry Panic! characters, List of Strawberry Panic! episodes, List of Strawberry Panic! albums, and Strawberry Panic! (short stories). I considered making a template, but there doesn't seem to be enough pages for that purpose.--十八 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there are plenty of articles to make a template, but I do not think it is necessary. Each of those articles are referenced within Strawberry Panic! using the main article template. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved some of the lead into a history section. I think that the lead had already summarised the different media that SP has well enough and repeating it in detail required a new section. Parts of the writing reads more like a narrative or is review-like, such as Perhaps the main plot decive in the series revolves around the Etoile election. Why not just come out and say The main plot device is the Etoile election. Suggestive writing isn't encyclopedic. Other examples are The students may go and Their tasks generally consist of. Sentences that suggest that something may happen should be reworded to something more definite.
Some sentences like who attend this school should really be who attend the school or who attend St. Spica as I don't believe that relative clauses should be able to backwardly refer to the title of a section. St. Spica had not been mentioned in the text prior to referring to this. I don't know how strict FA writing should be, but any relative clauses in separate sentences is poor structure in my view. A sentence by itself should make sense and a sentence like Depending on the media type, the way in how this is featured varies.... does not. A reader has to read it in context for it to make sense. This is only my view and I'm by no means an expert so I have left the sentences alone. --Squilibob 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you expand the lead to comply with WP:LEAD. Articles of this size should at least have a 3 paragraph lead. Tarret 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead incorperated the History section just yesterday, and right now the lead cannot be expanded without inclusion of the information in history; seeing how we can't have it both ways (3/4 paragraph lead with history section), I'm going to movie History into the lead again.--十八 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Mizuno

This is an article about a fictional character in the Sailor Moon series. The Sailor Moon Wikiproject hopes to nominate the article as a Good Article Candidate some time in the near future. Main points: is it easy to understand for non-fans? Does it steer clear of WP:OR? Does it stray into cruftiness? Does it follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) enough? Does the 'profile' section read well? (It's been recently rewritten). Thanks. -Malkinann 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like Malkinann did a pretty good with most of those already. :) The only things that remain to be done of those suggestions are the lead (I've been putting some thought into that) and one musical song whose description just needs verification. Actually, I can get rid of that uncertainty just by snipping half a sentence. Okay! --Masamage 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Senshi powers" seems too crufty to me and "Music" seems out of place in a character article.
A poll of 586 votes doesn't seem credible enough to claim that she is "the most popular character in the series". I'm sure plenty of other polls of similar size have had any of the Sailors win.
The article quickly aquires an overly in-universe tone.
The "Profile" section contains too many overly trivial details. Do we really need to know that "Besides reading, Ami loves playing chess and swimming"? Tighten this up.--SeizureDog 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the perspective on the lists - I didn't realise how listy the article was until you pointed it out. We'll have a think about how to paragraph some of the lists. I'm unsure if we should remove the Senshi powers, as that would take away from the comprehensiveness of the article, but perhaps if we talked more generally about Ami's role in battle as the brains that'd be a solution? The poll seems to have had more than one thousand votes.. but we're looking for a better reference on that. I agree that it does seem in-universe in places... I'm not sure about your familiarity with Sailor Moon, but part of the appeal lies in the varied characters, ie. the dollbox statistics. If we tried to remove any of the statistics details, (swimming, blood type, school club) it'd come back so often it just wouldn't be funny. -Malkinann 11:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. People are constantly editing those parts. Even when the stats were in a list, folks came and added duplicates of the list. --Masamage 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well do try to do something about it. Right now it feels like an article that goes on and on about what Peter Parker's favorite foods and hobbies are, only to end with "oh yeah, he also happens to be Spider-Man". Seriously, compare "Profile" to "Aspects and forms". If you can find that much to say about her normal self, it seems like there should be more information (aside from an attack list) for her most important role.--SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that does put it in perspective. I've put up a section stub. Does the profile read better now that Masamage has tried to make it out of universe? -Malkinann 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to Malkinann. Later this afternoon I'll see what I can do about expanding the Senshi section, and possibly providing more context for the statistics. It's true that right now they're like, "Yay the cute shy one likes sandwiches yay!" --Masamage 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Attacks section, I have just finished rewriting it as prose on a Project test page. Is it better? --Masamage 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Now it focuses on which attacks are important and not every single tiny one that might be used.--SeizureDog 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm seeing what the Project people think about making it official. Thanks for the feedback! :) --Masamage 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we changed the 'Music' section header to say 'Image songs', would that make it less incongruous? Or should it perhaps be prose-ified too, and made to include her poems and things as well? --Masamage 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's not really relevent. Information on image songs would be best served at its own article. e.g. List of Haruhi Suzumiya albums and Haruhi Suzumiya character song albums.--SeizureDog 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are pretty relevant. They appear in anime episodes, or they make statements about the character that aren't made so clearly anywhere else. (In at least one case we're using an image poem as a reference.) Anyway, most of the characters had multiple "single" albums, and there are many dozen larger albums covering at least a hundred SM songs, probably more. I shudder to think of cataloguing them all there are entire, enormous websites devoted to that. My feeling is that if it comes to cruft, this is definitely the least crufty way to handle the music, and if there's a lack of context for why the heck a music section exists, there probably should be more prose. --Masamage 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that's she has image songs is important for the average reader to know. Specificly which songs however, is not. Homer Simpson has also sang a number of songs throughout his series, but that doesn't mean he needs a section listing them. Just take "A number of image songs featuring Ami's character have been released.", stick it in the lead (which I just realized really needs to be expanded), and remove the rest.--SeizureDog 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as you've suggested, saving the song list in the talk page - maybe if the songs are particularly relevant, they'll make their way back in as references? -Malkinann 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had a go at expanding the lead, as in WP:LEAD - I'm not sure how sparklingly it reads, though. -Malkinann 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

What should we do now? Have we achieved GA quality or no? How can we accomplish that if not? --Masamage 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've expanded the section on Ami's "Sailor Mercury" role + lead and significantly expanded the section on her "Dark Sailor Mercury" role. Maybe the FU rationale for DSM needs work? If the peer review doesn't seem like we'll get any more comments, we can always request that it gets archived - although it seems that a FAC is an automatic out of the peer review system.. ;) -Malkinann 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the FU rationale for DSM's image, which brings them all up-to-date except for the picture of Chisaki Hama in civilian clothes. I have no idea where that one comes from. Unless it's on the Oracle? I'll check that when I get home tonight. Anyway, I'm going to try and figure out if it's kosher to ask the main WP Anime talk page to come look over here. If it is, I'll try that and we can get some more insight before moving on. --Masamage 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - I'd thought eternal-moon.org, but it doesn't seem to be there. Maybe we should swap it to one of her with glasses (cos we talk about her glasses a lot)??? -Malkinann 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it at the Oracle, but it seems to be just a modelling shot for Chisaka Hama, not a screenshot from the show. But here's a pretty good shot of Ami in glasses. --Masamage 21:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RahXephon

Presenting to the public before nominating for GAC. Please advise regarding format, out-of-universe perspective, prose, and comprehensivity. Thanksin advance for your advice and comments.--SidiLemine 16:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move this towards FA rather than GA; it certainly is a topic and article large enough to warrant it. As a major contributor, I'll respond to feedback, starting with automated review. --GunnarRene 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Large article doesn't mean that it's automatically "featured"; point is that GA is a simpler process for smaller articles. --GunnarRene 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[4]
    • Passed test.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
    • Summary style allready used. As of this moment, the readable prose has about 6 200 words, which is within the 6 000 to 10 000 word limit that is suggested in Wikipedia:Article size. I think this length is fine, especially since the article has many sections that cater to different encyclopedic angles. --GunnarRene 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now down below 5900 words of prose. --GunnarRene 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd still like feedback on length and verbosity though, and on balance between sections. --GunnarRene 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[3]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review passed or adressed. Only point left is a visit from an experienced copy editor.--GunnarRene 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-automatic reviews

The article's really good, and you seem to have invested a lot into it, but it just seems to pull in a lot of directions. At first glance this is what I'd do, this is what seems sensible to me:

  • The "japanese culture" and "Civilizations and creation stories" could be combined into one. Both deal with ancient civilizations and beliefs present in the series, they have something in common. And you make mention of the Mesoamerican influences in the japanese section, so it makes sense.
    • Done. Thanks. Why didn't I see that. :-) --GunnarRene 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Comparisons with other Anime," I'd recommend leaving Raideen (since the creators themselves admit the influence) and Evangelion (since everyone on the planet seems to think so). The stuff about Infinite Ryvius and "Other anime" seem inconsequential, so I'd suggest trimming that. Maybe the stuff about Host Club could be moved under "Legacy," as part of the series impact.
    • Done, undone, done. I'm leaving those that are sourced, since it shows that there were comparisons with many shows, not just two.--GunnarRene 21:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stuff about "Visual arts" and "Music" could be combined also.
    • Done
  • You have a footnote that directs to a picture of a Mayan sculpture. Why not upload it, or look for one already uploaded? Have looked at commons and not found something similar, so linked to web page instead (I consider it a convenience link). Found an interesting bas-relief from Palenque though.
  • Some images are needed for the characters
    • The associated article List of RahXephon characters has images of all of the main characters; the link in the main article could be adjusted to note this, rather than adding more pics to the main article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Characters image done. (Copied from character list.) --GunnarRene 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need to divide the "Reception" in TV, movie and manga reviews.--Nohansen 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For navigation, and because some reviewers reacted differently to the different story formats. --GunnarRene 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One small friendly recommendation: You say you'd "like to move this towards FA rather than GA; it certainly is a topic and article large enough to warrant it"... but you have know that the two featured articles of WP:ANIME, Excel Saga and Serial Experiments Lain, are barely 40KB, this one is pushing 60KB. Not because it is long it is guaranteed to be featured. Not everything about RahXephon needs to be here. Anything worth keeping, spin-off to sub-articles; what's not worth it, dump it.--Nohansen 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Simpsons was recently featured, at about 6000 words of prose. The Adventures of Tintin is today's featured article with about 7200 words of prose. RahXephon now has about 5900 words of prose. (All excluding lists). Wikipedia:Article size recommend a limit around 6 000 to 10 000 words of prose.--GunnarRene 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Re: "Not because it is long it is guaranteed to be featured". My point was that the article is a bit long for the Good Article process, which is really just one person who hasn't worked on the article rating the article.... --GunnarRene 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, 3 comments:

  • Isn't there an anime logo to place in the infobox rather than a screenshot?
    • A plain logo would have the benefit of shortening the infobox, but it would be efen better to have an image with a logo, the RahXephon, and perhaps even some characters.
  • Since the article describes the tv show, manga and the movie, I would recommend making it more clearer in the lead that this is the case: the first sentence only states it's a tv show.
    • Done
  • To be honest (for the benefit of the article) the prose seemed a bit weak. Since I'm no english major may-be you could ask one of the members of WP:LoCE to run through the article?
    • Yes, we've already asked and are waiting.

Good luck at FAC! — Tutmosis 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanon

Previous peer review

This article has gone through much revision in recent months and achieved Good Article status in January. I am looking to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon, and would like to know how to improve it more.--十八 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GunnarRene
  • Should link to Lycèe Trading Card Game
I'll get on that.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's been GA rated and is comprehensive enough to be A (more than the Air article), but has a few problems that might undo the GA rating:

    • Livejournal and forum posts used as sources.
This is merely because that information cited in those source could not be easily found in other places, but the information is still very true. I'll try to do some sorting out and find some other sources to use.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is inadequate: It should summarize the main points of the article rather than serve as mostly a release history.
The main points...Going off the TOC, we have Plot, Setting, Themes, Gameplay, Characters, Release and Sales, Reception, Adaptations, and Music. The Plot, Setting, Themes, and Characters most likely do not belong in the lead, or am I wrong? Gameplay is lightly touched upon, so that's there. While there is nothing on the Music in the lead, the lead is composed primarily of Release and Sales and Adaptations because there isn't really much else to put about the other sections.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do. Move some of the release details into the release section, and keep less detailed info in the lead. For example, exact release dates belong in the release section, not in the lead unless it's a particularly notable day like September 11 or Christmas Eve. You absolutely need to say something about the setting, plot, themes, characters and reception in the lead, without having to go too far into detail. Those things are the things that set it apart from other works. As for the music, you don't need to say much. Perhaps just state the number of soundtracks along with the other release info. In my view, the lead does not need to be equally balanced regarding each section length, but it has to summarize the article, and it needs to be equally NPOV. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do the secondary characters have severly in-universe articles?

Wait, are you talking about the individual character articles themselves, or the short summaries in this article? If it's the former, then I'd say that's not the concern of this article. For the latter, you can't really describe the characters without getting in-universe, or am I wrong?--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second. Be aware that on Featured Article review, daughter articles will also be scrutinized. It might be good to proactively reduce the secondaries to a list and reduce the amount of information. See {{plot}} and Wikipedia:Fair use for some reasons why. WP:FICTION is also relevant here. Some in-universe is good, but not so much. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of source is hentai.co.uk? I can't find an "about" section even.
This was one of the original sources on this page. I believe the site serves many functions, but also gives information on hentai games, such as Kanon.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need more information about who publishes it, and who writes on it. Without such information, it can't be relied on.--GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anime Densetsu seems like a site that hosts reviews written by anonymous, unpaid, users. WP:RS?
    • Why that geocities reference?
I've removed them.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sales into reception, preferably.
I'll get on that.--十八 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the prose could use some work before a Featured Article request, but it's understandable as it is - seemed better than the Air article. --GunnarRene 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the points about the sources that the article uses...I suppose I could remove all the sources and information taken from those sources if you are saying they shouldn't be there.--十八 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Great Teacher Onizuka episodes

I would like some input on how to make this list better. Please note though that the original air dates are mostly empty because I've been having a hard time finding sources for it. I might have to resort to using the English air dates, if only to fill in the table. Thanks. UnfriendlyFire 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. :) When was the Tokyopop release? Do you have a citation for that? -Malkinann 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a link here for the air dates on the Showtime network. I can check TV.com to verify those dates, but I think they might have referenced each other. The Tokyopop site might also have DVD release dates. UnfriendlyFire 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant the DVD release date. So you can say 'Tokyopop's July 2003 release', or whichever. - Malkinann 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of The Big O

I'd like to know the level of detail acceptable for the character entries in this article. As it is now, the entries go into ending details, character analysis and trivial commentary on the idiosyncrasies of the characters. ("Dorothy is also in the habit of standing perilously close to edge of the roofs of tall buildings" comes to mind)

I've checked the guidelines but am not any closer to understanding the right way to go about fixing the article. I like the List of Metal Gear Solid characters, but to follow it as an example would mean trimming most of what is already done. Any suggestions?--Nohansen 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple thoughts:
  • The first and probably most effective improvement would be to add more reliable sources - I appreciate your efforts to source the character info, but it looks to me as if most or all of the sources are blogs. The easiest source for info on something like this is to get all of the DVDs and manga volumes (maybe you can do it by interlibrary loan, or by leafing through the manga volumes at the store) and review the introductions/commentary/special features for "out of universe" information. If you can come up with a comment on why they chose Steve Blum for Roger or what they were going for with Dorothy, you can win big points both for sourcing and "out of universe" style.
  • Generally, all of the descriptions could be shortened and rewritten to make their point more clearly. It seems like there are some random sentences jumbled among what could be a clearer, better organized work, and those sentences should either be cut or integrated into the overall narrative.
Thanks, TheronJ 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at this article I can see a few obvious errors. There are a couple of spelling mistakes. It should conform to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) naming conventions. Move it to List of Big O characters or a similar name. It should also fit into a category other than the Big O category. It could be put into Category:Manga and anime characters by series for example. There are sentences like This character is a fictional character in the anime series The Big O which leads me to believe that there has been a mass merger of individual pages at some stage. --Squilibob 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so no other editor gets any ideas on renaming the article, WP:ANIME says Name this page List of characters in (series) if it is just a list, or Characters in (series) if it contains actual information on the characters. On the subject of what should be done with the "Character history" sections, I'd like to point out the Dalek article. Sure, the Daleks have a longer history than "Angel", but you get the idea.--Nohansen 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Big O media

As per SidiLemine's suggestion, I'm putting this article through peer review with the intention of going to WP:FLC.--Nohansen 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GunnarRene

Here a pseudo-random review. (I've removed irrelevant parts)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[2]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Avoid using contractions like: don't, won't, won't, haven't, hasn't.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: Before you move to featured list candidate, at least a majority of the episodes should have articles, as per FLC criteria 1 a. --GunnarRene 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice the videos from Youtube were removed. Thanks for fixing that. I'll see to working on more sources... I sort of threw together the list over the span of a few weeks. Looks good though, if I do say so myself.
Also: I was going to create episode specific articles, but was discouraged from doing so. See here. Anyone else have a say in this? Episode articles: in or out?--Nohansen 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, creating episode artiles should perhaps wait untill you have encyclopedic info to justify their creation. I also wanted to not make episode articles, but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links", and I was also getting more information than what would comfortably fit within a list. I also needed to refer to individual episodes. So that's why I created articles.
In any case, do all the other stuff first, and save episode articles to last. And if you can, give feedback on the RahXephon FLC above; negative citicism is very much appreciated too, for the improvement of the list. --GunnarRene 03:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"but to be a featured list you need to list something with "blue links"". While it is true that large amounts of red links are discouraged in FLCs, the existence of links is not always important. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and List of Planetes episodes is a good example. --SteveA026 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That list had an article for each and every episode that only included the same plot summary as in the list, and I believe that was also the situation when promoted. Ned Scot recently redirected all the episode titles to the list and de-linked them. And rightly so. If an unlinked plot summary is the main focus of the article, then that is not something which we should have. And I agree that we should promote otherwise good episode lists even if they don't have an article for any episode — as long as it's good in other ways.--GunnarRene 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article, following the guidelines in WP:EPISODE, and now it's been redirected to the media list. Any reason why this article was singled out? I understand SteveA026 had a problem with "forum posts as references", but couldn't you just remove the link?... Which, by the way, isn't a "forum post" in the pejorative sense of the phrase. It's just that the Save Big-O site has their episode synopsis in a forum. See here: "All the synopses have been completed, we just need final edits for some of them. If they are not yet posted to the main synopsis section you can find them in the forum.--User:Zola"
Oh, and by the way: SteveA026 created a List of allusions in The Big O. I like the idea. Any thoughts?--Nohansen 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I jumped the gun on that edit. I took your comment on my talk page (and lack of response on the article's talk page) to mean that you changed your mind about the individual episode articles. Oops.
And about the sources, I thought three was kind of excessive anyway for a short, to-the-point episode summary, so we're not damaging the credibility of the article by removing the forum source. TV.com alone should be sufficient to give us the info we need. --SteveA026 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Rumble

I need some advice on how to improve this article. Things could be added, removed, modified and polished but I am at a loss on deciding what needs to be done and what should take priority. My main concern is the layout but content is a huge issue as well. --Squilibob 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider expanding the reception and video game sections. In the reception section, make sure to include quotations from multiple sources (including any positive or negative reactions) that address all aspects of the series. Also, see if you might be able to reference the article some more; there are currently no inline citations in the first three sections. Has the series created any controversy (including any books/episodes pulled for one reason or another)? If so, that'd be a good thing to include. For an example, take a look at the Excel Saga article, which is currently a featured article. ShadowHalo 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "Media" section would be nice, that could cover the manga, the animes, the seiyu performances and CDs, the games, and various merchandise. Also, because of the recent cut, the article is lacking in pictures...(but an image for each character is overkill, maybe take a screenshot of the whole class together?) And the reception section is a bit short, but I guess there's no helping that...elaborate the issues with the fansubs or something. Hope this helps. _dk 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have expanded reception and video games which was merged in with the other information into the Media section. Added a picture of the cast from a screenshot of the OP theme and elaborated a little on the fansub issues. I've added some more in-line references and will search for some more. --Squilibob 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox picture shows the 2nd season logo from the anime, I think it is better if the one from the first season was put there instead. Because this article is not about the second season....And another point which may not have anything to do with this article...why do the characters all have their own articles? They really shouldn't, in my opinion. _dk 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anime section seems a bit empty. I'm thinking it needs info on the episode format (3 mini-episodes per episode), an episode list and, if possible, detailing the which manga chapters are adapted in the anime.--Nohansen 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air (visual novel)

I have requested a peer review to Air (visual novel) so that perhaps the article could be built up to Featured Article status.---- (十八) 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lack of Japanese reviews is going to kill it. We've got to figure out how to counteract that.--SeizureDog 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I entirely agree when looking at such featured articles as Serial Experiments Lain and Excel Saga that seem to have almost no Japanese reviews of the series.---- (十八) 07:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excel Saga got a lot of flak about it though. I was actually surprised it was able to pass with those objects still unanswered. Plus, I think the FA reviewers might expect reviews for a game more than a TV show. Additionally, considering the series has not been licensed outside of Japan, I think reviewers may be less lenient. Filling up with a bunch of reviews for an English release is one thing, but only having English reviews of a Japanese exclusive is a bit unbalanced. All I'm saying is that the issue is bound to come up in a FAC, so we should try to deal with it ahead of time.--SeizureDog 09:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big O

Second Peer Review.

Since making GA on January 2007, the article has gone through some changes. The prose is tighter, the lead is longer and useless sections and images have been eliminated. I would like comments on current content and further improvements so that we can try for a FA nomination.

Archive of first peer review

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohansen (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-06 Zaku II

I would like people to comment on thing to improve this article anything else that the editors of this article have missed so that we can try for a GA nomination.I wold also like to know if there is anything that needs to be split off this article to make it smaller. I would really like to avoid removal of large sections of information.Jeffpiatt 13:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could provide more context in the lead, maybe just with more links. To an uninformed reader what is a Grunt? With "After the original show's run" Which series is the original? When did it "run"? The article probably needs to be more obvious to the reader. Things like the interwiki links to the Japanese pages should use one of the further reading templates, should be in English and should state that they're in Japanese like See also MS-06J Zaku II Ground Type (in Japanese) --Squilibob 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azumanga Daioh

Second Peer Review.

Once again, I would like people to comment on thing to improve this article and grade the content value, general interest, etc, anything else that the editors of this article have missed so that we can try for a GA nomination. --Squilibob 10:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of first peer review

Looks like it's improved since the las go-around. :) Anyway, after just a glance, I'd say the two biggest issues from my perspective are the lack of a production section (which probably can't be helped), and the overly large character section: by the looks of it, the section simply reproduces part of the list of characters, so (per summary style) you can get away with condensing the character descriptions in the main article and providing a "Main article" reference. At the very least (and the following applies also to the character list article), would it be possible to shift to a simple dictionary list? In either case, I think the MoS frowns on the use of wikilinks in headers, and the presentation of the Japanese so prominently (rather than in the actual text) makes that section kind of unattractive. The use of the anime-voices template disrupts the flow, too; perhaps add a line at the end of each character's description that she was voiced by So-and-so in Japanese and Such-and-such in English?--Monocrat 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the section headers, it certainly wasn't like that at last peer review and can be changed back. I have personally trimmed each characters section down a few times but it is difficult summarizing them when the story is so character driven to begin with. I will take your suggestion in full and condense and simplify the characters section though. --Squilibob 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the lead should summarize, and they don't appear in the body of the article, the stuff about the Very Short Movie and Web Daioh seem out of place in the lead. Maybe you could combine it with the "Title" section into something about the origin of the TV series. Also, the stuff about the hoax could be moved down to the article.
Also, does every character need an article? They could just as well be merged into the list. (which is a mess right now; it looks like the character section before Squilibob fixed it)--Nohansen 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the suggested material into an adaptation section since it seemed out of place in the Title section. The individual articles would require merge proposals, which will take time to gain consensus. --Squilibob 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations could be more detailed - see WP:CITE#Full citations. I'm also not so sure that you need Image:Azuarticlepic.PNG in the article - the caption and fair use rationale doesn't make enough of a case for me. The lead needs some work - it doesn't summarise the article properly. As a whole, the article seems a bit short. -Malkinann 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will work on the lead and the citations. I have changed the caption to the image, as I think the editors of the article may want to keep it as it has been associated with the article for ages.--Squilibob 05:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at the article, the more I think the adaptations section and the media section could be combined into one section called media. -Malkinann 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done that and it reads well thanks.--Squilibob 10:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Title" seems too short to be a section. Maybe you could turn it into a note, like how the Excel Saga article explains Koushi Rikudou's spelling. I did the same thing for explaining Harlock's name a few weeks back. The stuff about "Azumanga" being used for Kiyohiko Azuma's other works could be moved to his article.--Nohansen 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil May Cry 3 (manga)

I am placing this page for a peer review to raise it to Good Article, as part of Devil May Cry Task Force's scope of improving DMC related pages, all the suggestions presented will be attended to ASAP. Thanks for your time.-凶 20:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 05:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking briefly at the article I have noticed a few things. The lead needs to be totally rewritten. Establish context, it looks like this article was split from a bigger article at some stage. Say that the different parts are called codes explicitly. The main article template shouldn't need to be used so many times in the article, why not get rid of them as they are creating a lot of whitespace needlessly. Link the characters' name instead. You may not even have to have each character in a subsection.--Squilibob 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki's Delivery Service

hi I have been contributing to this article for a little while. I have been trying to get time to work on it more, I want to thank everyone that has put what they can in to it. Perhaps this article can get to "good article" status soon, until then I was wanting suggestions on how it is set up and etc. I will try to check back here as much as possible thank you bye. Alus 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly looks good. There are issues here and there. Examples include:
  • Sources & References
  • Disney release
  • Character's section needs more details
  • Differences between versions section needs to be reworded to were it flows better.
Any other thoughts? Sjones23 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi thanks for responding. I was the one actually, that made the todo list on the talk page. I have been trying to work on these subjects but need some assistance. thank you Alus 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article could be reorganized to achieve better flow. The two differences sections could be put one after another or even merged. The musical and production sections could also be put one after another. I agree that the characters section is messy because of the whitespace. If you can't add more details then maybe you would consider reducing the size of the portraits? --Squilibob 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yotsuba&!

I would like to get this article to GA, and need advice on how to get there. Does anyone have suggestions for what's left to do? —Quasirandom 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems good, meaning it's organized and easy to read, but there are some things that need fixing:
  • In the lead, "the manga was put on hold by ADV Manga, much to the chagrin of readers." Do you have any evidence of this? If so, it needs sourcing.
Aside from frequent complaints on message boards and blogs, not yet. I'll look for something citeable. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try to avoid parenthesis, like "In reference to this fact (or perhaps because of it)" and "teases him about his constant absence (in Chapter 14, she laments that 'Dad isn't with us anymore', whereupon Fuka corrects her, saying, 'He's not dead, just at work!')" You should try to work the information into the prose; it might read better that way. Though I'm not saying you'll have to do it for getting the article to GA.
Good point. I almost sorta knew it needed doing, but hadn't convinced myself. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miura Hayasaka is boyish and brusque, both in her appearance and her way of speaking (this is very noticeable in the Japanese version)" Could you offer some examples?
That'll have to come from someone who can read the Japanese version. I'll put it on our to-do list. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Volumes and chapters has enough info to stand on its own. Maybe, combine with Story?
Hmm. Something to tinker with. We've struggled a little with what information goes there and what in the sub-article. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, the media section includes a list of the Japanese and English tankobon complete with ISBN's.
Gotcha. I'll go dig those up. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC) —I ended up added those to the List of Yotsuba&! chapters article, since that seemed a more logical place. -Quasirandom 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Miss Stake' in a common English fan translation." Is there an official translation? If so, use it.
The official translation hasn't reached that chapter yet. :( -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some common words and phrases that don't need wikilinking: sense of humor, mundane, flower shop, air conditioning...
... Ya gotta point. I'll take a second look at those. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read the manga, so what does it mean to be a self-styled six-year-old who's really five years old?
That is a bit compressed. I'll clarify. (When asked how old she is, she said "... Six?" and only much later was corrected by her father.) -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I found.--Nohansen 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankee. Much helpful. -Quasirandom 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There -- aside from finding an actual example for the fourth point, I think most of your suggestions have been addressed. Thanks again for your help. Assuming nothing changes drastically the next week or so, I'll put the article up for GA. —Quasirandom 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of your images need a detailed fair use rationale that complies with all parts of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, or the GA reviewer can simply quick-fail the article.-Malkinann 09:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to an image description with the level of detail you're thinking of? I ask, because I've seen FURs that passed fair-use review with details similar to what I gave those I uploaded (and used as my models). There seems to be no small amount of confusion on Wikipedia on this point. —Quasirandom 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I usually do with the fair-use rationale is explain why the image is needed, what purpose it serves. Maybe "It illustrates the series' heroes" (Image:Experts of Justice (Giant Robo).jpg or "it illustrates the film noir style of the series." (Image:Shadowcasting (Big O).JPG)--Nohansen 15:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would what I've added to Image:Koiwai-tou-chan.jpg be sufficient? (Is the heading necessary? Nothing I can find says anything explicit, but all the examples have one.) —Quasirandom 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuka (manga)

I have been working towards getting this article up to GA standards. Any suggestions how to make this article better would be appreciated. (Duane543 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
I think the lead is decent, but I'm still open to suggestion to make it better. (Duane543 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Only linked full dates per linking to allow readers' date preferences. (Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
One in the infobox.(Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Done. (Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • <Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 meter, use 100 meter, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100&nbsp;meter.[?]
Fixed. (Duane543 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Automated Peer Review

After those edits, this is what I get back from the Peer Review this time:

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

Right, my ideas before you go for GA.

  • Wikilink full dates, e.g. 6 July 2005 -> 6 July, 2005
Returned the dates as they were before (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Don't superscript th as in 24th.
Done (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Trim external links per WP:EL
Removed 3 external links (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Not keen on the formatting in the Characters section, looks untidy...
If you are talking about the space between them, it's because I used a break tag so make the images to go in the layout the way I wanted. Also I can't compress the images smaller because they don't look right. (Duane543 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But it's a good article, so not far from being a good article! The Rambling Man 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Per Wikipedia:Context, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006 (or 15 January2006). Kazu-kun 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yotsuba Koiwai

I've done as much as I know how to improve the article (well, aside from finishing tracking down the unverified fact) and would like any guidance as to what else to do -- especially in the absence of guidelines for character articles at WP:MOS-MANGA. If possible, I'd like to take this to GAC. —Quasirandom 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is currently very short ~700 words. Consider adding more information. Some ideas may include information about the character's Production, the Character's role in the fictional work, etc. G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The importance of some of the facts are unknown to me: "She is an excellent swimmer, but not as good an artist as she thinks she is." Why is this mentioned? Does it play an important role in the story? (Be careful not to G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those are key in specific chapters. I'd left them in as examples of unexpected competance and incompetance, respectively (and, well, because they tickle my whimsy -- it's as easy, in these things, to get to dry as too overloaded with trivia). Though, be careful not to what? —Quasirandom 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops—I seemed to have over typed there—Be careful not to make something seem more important than it is... G.A.S 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain the importance of those facts in the article (I.e. just provide information about why you gave the example—is it something a reviewer noted?/Major plot item?) Please provide the chapters—it helps to keep an out of universe view; and provides information that it is not necessarily important in the series, as much as in a chapter. G.A.S 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not explain why the character does what she does (both in the fiction, as well as why did the writer decide the character does what she (the character) does. If possible, this should be expanded. G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding reception: Add, if possible, more details about the character's reception in general. I would prefer the article not mentioning the reviewers' names in the text (Unless the names could be linked to an article about the reviewer—if the reviewer is notable enough). This information can rather be provided in the citation. G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems not to appropriately distinguish between fact and fiction; and often it seems to speak about the character as if the character is real. An example of this is "Few details of her life before the series begins are known" which could be fixed as "The series does not provide details of the character's life before the start of the series" (My wording is obviously not perfect, but illustrates the issue.) G.A.S 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All good points to consider/work on. —Quasirandom 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odex's actions against file-sharing

Previous peer review
References : First PR, FAC, GAC

This article is suffering from the The Man, His Son, And the Donkey syndrome. There are a lot of criticisms thrust at it, but nobody is willing to fix it. The single biggest problem is that there are no editors other than myself being able to copyedit it (in which an objection of FAC requires someone with a fresh perspective to review it), and not all objections on the article seem fixable. Which is a waste because content-wise it is comprehensive enough to be an addition to Featured Articles. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kingdom Hearts media

This article was recently an article about the Kingdom Hearts manga that is related to the Kingdom Hearts video game series. It was switched to a list format in order to encompass all the related media of the series since the manga article looked like it wasn't making any real progress. Myself and other editors would like to make it to Featured List and would appreciate any comments and criticism that would help accomplish that. Thank you (Guyinblack25 talk 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Krator

  • If possible, find a book review instead of amazon.com as a citation for the manga and the novels.
  •  Done Some notes might be appropriate with the mangas and novels. For example "follows the storyline of the second game" - I know it is in the title, but explaining it further cannot hurt.
  •  Done Mangas and novels have publishers. This is important, so note it.
  •  Done Instead of writing N/A, make the cell in the table another colour - white perhaps, or a darker grey. N/A everywhere is a bit ugly.
  •  Done I assume the Japanese titles are in Japanese, and that the current listings are translated from that. Maybe state the Japanese titles, and move the English titles to the "English" column.
  •  Done Decrease the margin between the first table in the novels section and the image, so that the Japanese titles do not span two lines (like "Kingdom Hearts Part 1", with only "1" on the second line).
  •  Done The lead section seems short, especially because you have some real text in the article as well, not only a list. See WP:LS.
  •  Done What about some useful external links?

--User:Krator (t c) 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to make edits per your comments, two of your points have been addressed and others are partially done. Thank you for your suggestions. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Address two more points and have expanded the lead paragraph and tried to make the manga paragraph more concise. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Have finished addressing three more points. The list is really starting to shape up nicely. Any other comments/suggestions would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 10:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fist of the North Star

I'm trying to improve this article as much as possible to bring it to GA (or even FA) standards. Most of it has been a solo work. I've added a notes and references sections (which was missing before), actual citations from the creators, references to its reception in Japan, ISBN numbers and publishing dates of the original Jump Comics volumes (which could branch off to a separate page, since there are so many different reprints of the series). I've also removed the "References in other works" section (as well as a previous Trivia section), which I believed didn't add anything to the article. I'm still not completely sastified enough though and I want some suggestions. For example, should I use a cover from the Jump Comics edition (which is the one at the moment), an English cover or the eBook edition that I was previous using? I also feel the lead section might be too long as well. Jonny2x4 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

  • The Naruto (the series, not the character) article is well written, but it needs to be far more well written to reach either GA or FA quality. Any suggestions are welcome. The only one I have is to talk about the theme of the series: ninja; and to also desribe more about the relationships between characters. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads a bit fannishly, and could do with a copyedit. Grand pronouncements about the series being character-driven should be cited to critics, for example. Are there any reviews etc. of the series? (or of parts of the series) You should change the "growth and popularity" section to be a "Reception" section, in which you talk about critics and fans. Take a look at the anime wikiproject's series GAs for more ideas. -Malkinann 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the name to reception, but I fear what would happen should I put that It is the world's most popular anime and manga series (and it most likely is), since it is original research. I know nothing else about reception. Also, I would like to mention how the series developed into what it currently is and the themes of the series. I've already started to here, but it is far from ready to list yet. I'll start looking over other GA anime/manga articles tomorrow, I'm going to get off soon today. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naruto is quite popular, but hardly the most popular. Dragon Ball is still the most popular Shonen Jump title of all time, while in Japan alone One Piece is the most popular of current titles (although, Naruto and Bleach are not far behind). Here's a site with Shonen Jump circulation numbers. [1] Jonny2x4 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally you need to distinguish between current popularity (which will vary according to what series are currently in production) and long term popularity where you consider how well series were received in their time, plus the longevity of that popularity. (In the latter definition, Evangelion usually seem to come out top.) Samatarou 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small point: you need to give an order when naming the characters in the image caption.--SidiLemine 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs work: i don't even know where to begin to describe the work needed. I will suggest Bleach (manga) as a guide however.--88wolfmaster 04:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I was about to suggest we take the example the Bleach article gave us and list a small and basic summary of the main characters. The problem is, however, we need to judge just which characters are main or major. For example, none of the other characters match up with Sasuke or Naruto, but some of them play just as important a role as Sakura and Kakashi do, like Shikamaru. So, like Bleach, we should decide just what qualities a character should have to be main besides be a mmeber of team 7. I suggest:
  • Close to Naruto Uzumaki.
  • Must have battled both a member of Akatsuki and a named follower of Orochimaru at least once.
I don't have any more ideas, though. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we only include Team 7 on the main page for simplicity's sake, and re-work the List of characters in Naruto article instead of adding other characters to the main page.--88wolfmaster 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little to the reception section that you might like to expand upon. I'd suggest that you read through a review, and pick out what it says are the good bits and the bad bits of Naruto. Then rewrite it in your own words and use the review as a source. Here's a couple of links to get you started: meta-review review -Malkinann 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yotsuba&! chapters

previous PR

Yokohama Kaidashi Kikō

I would like to continue improving this article, possibly even sending it to GAC, but I'm at a loss for what to do next. Any help apprecitated. —Quasirandom (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of some of the things that jump out at me:
  • The introduction writes on how the series is known in Indonesia, South Korea and to the fans. Is that really necessary?
  • Some sentences could be written in a more concise manner; like changing The manga was originally published by Kodansha in the magazine Afternoon from June 1994 to February 2006 to The manga was serialized in Kodansha's Afternoon magazine from June 1994 to February 2006.
  • There's some facts that need citations.
  • The list of prominent mysteries could be changed to prose, maybe even transform into a section on the series "Setting".
  • "Unofficial fan translations" are not notable... I think.
  • Is there info on the series' origins, author's inspirations, etc?
  • There's no need to repeat the voice actresses in the "Anime" section.
  • Some info on the plot of the OVA's (and Drama CD's) could be useful. Also, is there any relation between the anime and audio dramas?
  • A short explanation of mono no aware could be good, so the reader doesn't have to go to another article to understand what this article is talking about.
That's what I have for now.--Nohansen 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Those are helpful. To respond to a couple of those, the other names are because I've seen the series referred to in discussion by at least the Korean name, and wanted the disambiguation; the Indonesian name can probably go, though. I once tried putting the bulleted mysteries into prose, only to find it read more awkwardly; that was with an older, longer version of the list, and possibly it's time to try again. I'll work on the others over the next *mumble* days. —Quasirandom 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X (manga)

I've listed this article for peer review because writing has proven harder than I expected. It's my first article on a manga series so I had absolutely no frame of reference. Besides the usual pointers, I'd like to know if there's anything lacking and if it's good enough. Thanks, Nohansen (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. :) I have some things to say and it'll probably come over as pretty aggressive, so don't take it too personally. It's in the nature of peer reviews that they hurt the main contributors badly. :) Also, everything which follows is my personal opinion even if I don't specify it. :)
Lead.
  • Too many paragraphs. Three is the absolute maximum IMO but in this case, just two would be enough: first three can be merged together without much information loss and so can the last two.
  • There are no inline quotations in the lead, which is a bit ambiguous: on one hand, it unloads the section greatly, yet on the other, it makes one nervous about whether the statements are sourced or not.
Plot.
  • It is just a brief introduction, a synopsis. One'd expect a complete brief summary of manga storyline from a good article. Plot differences in television series and movie could be then covered in the respective sections. Oh, and the plot summary should be at least superficially OOU.
Characters.
  • I'd add the names of all Dragons (at least, in their original allegiances) to the respective sections, just for the sake of completeness. Plus, of course, links to their respective sections in the characters list.
Publication.
  • The reason why the title was changed to X/1999 appears unsourced. Overall, it might be a good idea for someone to go over an article and post {{fact}}s wherever needed. I could do that but I require your consent.
Adaptations.
  • See my comments on the plot.
Design.
  • "Clamp's X defies convention" is too strong a statement. It definitely needs to be mildered down a bit. "According to critics, Clamp's..." Or someting like that.
  • Too brassy: "ladies of Clamp", "childhood sweetheart", "to tell the tale", "walk their path" (overall, that whole paragraph violates the encyclopedic tone guidelines heavily).
  • "The ensemble cast, inspired on Takizawa Okikuni's Nansō Satomi Hakkenden" Source?
  • The whole duality discussion in Motifs can be merged in a single paragraph. As can the dreaming and the fate parts, respectively.
Media.
  • I'd place this section immediately after the Adaptations, because they describe similar things.
The images appear to be appropriately tagged and FUed except for the one in the infobox: is it really a logo rather than manga cover? :) --Koveras ☭ 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been helpful, thank you. Like I said, this article has proven considerably harder to write than my other two, so any criticism is welcomed. I'll get to work in the next few of hours.
About the sources: Besides the naming issue with Dark Horse Comics (which I got from X's ANN entry) all is sourced with the CLAMP interviews. The line about Hakkenden comes from the interview in CLAMP no Kiseki 8. Since I already used that inline citation earlier in the paragraph, I though it'd look bloated if I used it again. Same with the lead; I normally don't cite the lead since it's a summary (of a well-referenced article).
If you want to tag some stuff as {{fact}}s is fine by me. I'll provide the citation.
And the infobox image it's neither a manga cover nor a logo. It's the TV series title screen. I'll fix that, too.--Nohansen 12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO it's better to place the citation at the end of the paragraph if it sources several statements: it kinda transmits the message "everything up 'til now was taken from this source", whereas a footnote after the first sentence doesn't really say anything about what follows... --Koveras ☭ 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Senshi

I've listed this article for peer review because the editors feel at a loss for what else can be done to improve the quality of the article to get it up to GA status. Any input would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Zemalia (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Blade

Have found some more citations and expanded a bit on the overall story of Jiraishin, with an added section for a movie supposedly based on it.

Thanks,

Ominae (talk) 04:45, 21 November 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 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b See footnote
  2. ^ a b c See footnote
  3. ^ a b c See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Peer_review/2007

Leave a Reply