Talk:Madlax/Archive 1

older entries

Not only is the third paragraph awful gramatically (the politician wants to kill himself by way of Madlax, if you don't get it), but it's the only reason the spoiler warning is in there. I would be much obliged if somebody could refactor it. - glasnost 03:00, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps more spoilers?

That could be a solution for the problem, very useful for those who prefer to know more of the series without have to watch it entirely, however, this could be bad for others, anyhood, I think someone could talk about symbolism ofthe series, bcs there is a lot of it (I think one of the reason why no one else has attacked Madlax is bcs most of the peeps dindt see some ideas reflected in the argument and characters, anti-war followers (I am not one of them) will find Madlax really dissapointment) --General Kane Nash 02:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know how much 'spoilers' are allowed to spoil. See, the existing page just gives very non-spoiler-ish information about the characters, so I don't see why it is for the most part even marked 'spoilers'. We could always have a spoiler-specific section in which we say what MADLAX, Margaret and Laticia actually ARE, I dunno. --59.167.107.150 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the Russian article, which is well on its way to the featured pantheon right now. The election would probably be over in a couple of weeks, so I'm likely gonna expand this one afterwards. :) --Koveras ^☭ 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian translation

Ok, folks, I've completed the translation of the Russian article that is currently featured on Rupedia. The text is available in my sandbox, and I intend to simply copy-paste the whole thing into this article (overwriting the old content). Therefore I ask everyone to check whether I have missed something out that is the article right now, but isn't in my translation. Thank you. PS: Oh, and I'll copy the missing screenshots from Russian Wikipedia when they are needed. Right now, I'll go translate the episode list. PPS: Please, don't mind the spelling mistakes, grammar and incorrect name spellings at this point, right now, it's only about the content. --Koveras ^☭ 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fantastic! :P Thank you for mentioning the yuri that is suggested in it. Kyaa the Catlord 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) As for yuri, there are many reviews out there that list MADLAX as a shoujo-ai anime, so I decided that it's worth explaining. :) --Koveras ^☭ 08:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvement

A few points worth mentionning, as you said the article went FA on the Russian Wiki and I expect you will want to have this one recognised also.

• The lead is very short. It should detail the production staff, a short synopsis (or theme, or description) of the plot, and any simple detail that explain if there is anything really distinctive in this anime.
  • Kov: I agree that staff and distinctive features should be added, though I can't really think of what to write on the latter right now. :( As for the synopsis, we already have a full section about that, is it OK for the two to be redundant?
    • The last point is not the most important. About the synopsis, the lead is supposed to be a succinct summary of the wole article, "in a nutshell". So don't be afraid to be redundant there. On the other side, you probably shouldn't have redundancy between the character and synopsis sections (like the 98% thing).--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, now I get what the "lead" is about. %) Ok, I'll see what I can come up with. Btw, the 98% thing is only mentioned once in the translation. :P --Koveras ^☭ 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the article is unsourced. You will need sources for almost every affirmation. Remember it's OK to cite the anime, as long as you give a complete sentence, and advise the episode.
  • Kov: I admit I have a problem with recognizing the statements that need to be sourced. :( I'll probably need to ask you or someone to mark them with "facts" once translation is copied over (tomorrow, if nothing goes wrong). More importantly: is it really mandatory to write complete sentences rather than just episode numbers? Because the references can become real *huge*, as some episodes (especially in the end) contain multiple important revelations.
    • Basically, in a perfect wikiworld, everything should be sourced. I'll try and tag to make that clear. It is not really mandatory to cite the exact facts, but then you can't take many liberties. If you cite a sentence, you can sum up a reccuring idea; if you just cite the episode, you have to stick to the pure facts.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I still don't really get it. :( Should I do it like in Simoun (anime) or in the Simoun (mecha)? --Koveras ^☭ 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• The trivia section is actaully very interesting, compared to most trivia section; however, it must be merged with the rest of the article. There's a war going on against trivia sections.
  • Kov: I have already read about that somewhere, so I considered moving some trivia to the other sections: the easter egg goes to "Releases"; Four Civilizations and fnords - to the "Holy Books"; Kajiura-related infos to the staff section (see above); Laetitia and, possibly, Colonel Burton to "Characters" and eventually a separate article (see below). The only things that are really trivial are: Darwin, Hong Kong, Hitomi no Kakera, red shoes and Maneki Neko.
    • Darwin and Hong Kong are actually trivial, and as such, they should be deleted, unless you are willing to fill a "setting" section. The reason why trivia sections aren't liked is that if it's trivial, it's probably irrelevant and unencyclopedic. If you want to keep it, Maneki Neko should move to characters, and Hitomi no Katera to "songs". Red shoes will be very hard to pass as not being Original Research, so they'll probably have to go, unless you find a supporting source.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know how we could fit Maneki Neko to the characters, but as for the red shoes, would ANN trivia page qualify as reliable? --Koveras ^☭ 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• The characters section is too long. Consider having a separate article in the future for all the detailed characters descriptions, but for now only the main characters should be mentioned in the main article.
  • Kov: Then I suppose that'll have to be Margaret, Madlax, Vanessa, Elenore, Monday, Carrossea and Limelda. The rest will have to go to a separate article. Additionally, what is meant by "mentioned"? How detailed should the information about them be? The problem is, if we cut the chara section significantly, we'll have to expand the plot summary, since it will become incomprehensible. Summary is already huge as it is despite the six hours I've spent condensing it. However, now that I think of it, the problem can be solved by wikilinking particular names in the summary to the sections of the chara article, like I did in Exosquad articles...
    • Seven main characters seems a lot, but then again I didn't see it. Mentioned means that they appear in the article. If you are going to have a characters article, the info in the main should be scarce. Look at Planetes for a good example, and at Serial Experiments Lain for a less clean one. Don't worry about having a long plot summary, as it will be trimmed down afterwards. Most plot summaries begin small, then get bigger and bigger and more trivial until someone rewrites it from scratch, and that two or three times, before they stabilize. Wikilinking is always a good solution, but the article should still be understandable in itself. Oh, and you'll need the voice actors. There's a template named "anime voice" for that, that gives great results.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the seven characters are actually the ones portrayed on the top-right picture. %) As for the voice actors, I DO have them all listed within the respective character descriptions. Though if we move the characters to a separate article, we can make a table with the names and put it to the "Staff" section. --Koveras ^☭ 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Try adding pictures, main characters would be good.
  • Kov: I have already remarked that the pictures will be added once the translation is copied over to the article. :) I have them all nice and properly tagged on the Rupedia. %)
    • Good for you! :)--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• The weapons section is generally frowned upon as irrelevant, but I love the format you gave to this one, so I'll refrain.
  • Kov: Well, we can move it to the Terminology section and rename it to "Background" or something like that. Like, the section "Background" containing subsections "Terminology", "Holy Books", and "Weapons". OR we can simply stick with a link to the BTF Wiki article in the refs, as it was done in the Russia article, since BTFW contains all the guns mentioned in the table plus lots of links to other specialized sites.
    • Sounds reasonable. Still, beware of not being too in-universe in your perspective. Articles about fiction should always be written from a "real world" perspective, and as such the place available to describe the background is limited. About at least half the article should be baout the anime, as opposed to about what's in the anime. Like I said: inspirations, etc. If you put too much in-world stuff, you'll get sacked.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll keep that in mind. --Koveras ^☭ 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about the anime, but the holy books seem to deserve an actual section, with phrases and descriptions, instead of just a table.
  • Kov: Well, they DO have a larger section in my translation, if that's what you mean... It contains their background, purpose, and general description. The only thing I can think that we can add are the names of the original owners (at the start of the series).
    • That probably won't be needed.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• What is generally expected of a good anime article is to have a section for the critics and reception (sales, prizes, reviews...), and another one for the origins and inspiration (with citations from the authors).
  • Kov: That's a bit problematic, for, as I've remarked in "Reception", the series has relieved *very* moderate attention. In fact, it's very hard to find decent reviews about it and as for the prizes, I'm afraid it hasn't got any. ^^ Another point is that I have no idea where to get the sales data for animes... The problem with the origins and inspiration is that most of the info is likely contained within The Bible artbook and it has never been translated from Japanese.
    • This will definitely be a problem. Most of the comments you want to make about the series have to come from somebody else's mouth, so reviews are generally the best place to start. If it is out on DVD in the USA, you'll probably be able to find review (see anime on dvd, or others). I had the same problem working on Serial Experiments Lain; you might have a look and pick from the references at the bottom, there's a dozen or so DVD review sites.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll look them through. --Koveras ^☭ 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you don't want to get bugged by the image nazis out there, you should specify where you got the image madlaw.jpg, and justify that it's been released.
  • Kov: You mean, the top-right corner one? I think that's from AniDB, but originally it was in The Bible. I can even get the page number if necessary... Low-res promotional artworks *are* fair-use, aren't they?..
    • Oh yeah, definitely. But you still have to say where you picked it from, and "promotionnal" it a bit tricky... Some say it's any kind of promotion, others that it's only what has been delivered in rights-free packages to news agencies... You probably won't have a problem with that one if you don't want to get to FAC.
      • And if I eventually do? --Koveras ^☭ 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically that's it. I know you didn't ask for a full peer review, and I hope you don't take that badly, but it's always good to have these things lined up from the start. That's a great article anyway, keep it up!--SidiLemine 10:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No-no, I was considering to nominate it for a peer review anyway, so I'm glad you volunteered. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 11:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until you finish to tag for facts and to start looking for reviews, etc. Let me know when you're ready. Cheers!--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Planning

Since the section has turned a bit illegible, here is the to-do list:

• Start the Background section (I'll do it, eventually). Background comes before the Story and should contain:
  • Descriptions of Nafrece, Gazth-Sonika, Bookwald Industries, Enfant
  • Similarities with our world including the weapons table
• With the Background section done, rm the Synopsis section by moving the remaining story info to the "lead" (I'll do it)
• Start a character list article and move the entire descriptions there. Reduce the chara section to seven brief, non-spoilorific descriptions with screenshots and voice actors (no Mashimo Menu).
  • Wikilink every character name in the main article to the character (sub-)section in the list.
• Get rid of the remaining trivia (I'll do it myself as soon as the Background section and the chara article are there)
• Add Staff and production section after Releases
• Locate all statements in need to be sourced (SidiLemine agreed to help here)
  • Find a whole bunch of reviews to support the IRL statements (I'm afraid, SidiLemine will have to do the searching part, as well)
  • Find corresponding scenes, dialogues and episodes for the in-universe statements (I can do that)
• Check all the titles and names for their consistency with the official translation (this should be done after everything else, to ensure overall consistency)

Well, that's the general plan, I suppose. --Koveras ^☭ 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow

It seems we edit at the same hours! I've had an edit conflict with your last one. :) Generally I agree with your to-do. What do you mean by IRL?

In order to avoid edit conflicts, I suggest that we postpone the unsourced statement tagging until the very end, when I'm done with background section and chara article. In the meantime, you can look for those reviews and stuff. %) By "IRL" I meant "in real life", that is, everything regarding the reception, production, theme, and everything. It'd probably be the best if you simply list everything notable that you can find here and we'll see how we can incorporate it all in the article. --Koveras ^☭ 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is my original text: This is impressive! That's a lot of work you're putting in here. I'll start a new list to make conversation easier:

• The lead is much better now.
  • There is still more to come, I guess. -Koveras

• About citing the episodes: Yes, that's what I meant. Check out Planetes for another good example.
• I guess the ANN ref is OK! Even if it can be edited by any logged contributor, it is still on a recognised site, so...

• About going to FAC: as far as I know, there has ever been only one anime to pass: Excel Saga. You might want to have a look to see what's expected from an FA. This is as far as it gets from the fan page. You can notice there how little place is granted to the plot, characters, action, etc, and much more to an analyse, critique, and overall description of the anime and the place it holds in contemporary culture.
  • Well, the the Excel Saga has had trice as much time to become popular and find a cultural place to hold. ^^ I bet, if we wrote about Noir, it'd've been slightly easier. -Koveras
    • Sure. But you have to remember that it is easier to pass a small, well-balanced article (see Believers) than a big one with only in-universe info.-Sidi

• When you create the characters page, you will want to reduce the info on each character to a minimum. Basic info, place in the series, distinctive capacities, maybe key relationships.
  • Yeah, that's what I had in mind, too. :) -Koveras

• I see the references are on good way! You'll still have to find something to back the "shoujo-ai" and "war" parts, or it will pass as fan speculation.
  • Indeed. However, as for the former, I'm not sure whether it can be backed by an external source. Would the references to particular eps suffice? That subsection doesn't really contain any speculation, just summarizes the corresponding storylines. -Koveras
    • I tagged the "war" section so you can get an idea. Maybe I got a little carried away, but that's what you face if you go FAC. The GAC people are generally a little cooler, but still.... About half of these can be sourced by citing episodes, but all the others (specially the last sentence, "one can guess....") are definitely going to need backing up, rewording, or deletion. In the shoujo-ai section, you can't just say it's impossible that there is some kind of desire, as that's exactly what original research is. Even if you found a secondary source saying this, you would have to go "some think it's impossible..." Even the speculations by fans have to be backed (althought I guess in this case a forum should do). Same for Yamaani, and the possible reasons for bad reception. -Sidi
      • IRL: see above, the very first reply in this subsection. %) I'll look into the rest. --Koveras ^☭ 11:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting very good. It will soon be the moment to put it up for peer review, and then, if all goes well, GAC!--SidiLemine 11:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's it with the sourcing and stuff. Now it needs some stylistic improvement and, perhaps, trimming, though as for the latter, ca. 8-9 kb are references rather than prose. Additionally, I'm not really content with the Staff and Cast sections - they can be more compact IMO, but I don't know how to do that. Any ideas? Perhaps, there is some smart film template I have to yet learn about... --Koveras ^☭ 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some style corrections, but it'd be really appreciated if someone with a better eye for grammar than me looks through the article. I've also compacted (visually) the production section, but the article is still 59 kb big. --Koveras ^☭ 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Here are a few nice links:

Volume 1 at Rotten tomatoes: links to 4 good reviews.

Volume 2: 9 commercial reviews, probably 2 or 3 usefl.

The ANN reviews are good, you shouln't have trouble finding anything you want to say about the characters, the mood of the series, or that kind of stuff there. Also goo to explain and justify reception, ie comparison to Noir, etc.

It seems like there's staff commentaries in the DVD extras. If you have them, that's a gold mine.

I see you've got the Newtipe interview, that's good too.

Note that ANN have an article for each DVD, plus one in the encyclopedia.

As you said, I'll wait until you finish before tagging any further.--SidiLemine 12:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done with the general restructuring. I'll need more finishing touches, but I'll leave that for tomorrow. Sidi, it's your turn. :) --Koveras ^☭ 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sidi, it's gonna take some time for me to read all those reviews, plus, I've just got assigned on a new job in real life, so it's probably gonna take some time to get all those statements sourced. Just so that you know. :) --Koveras ^☭ 18:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Hope you like it. I'll try and do some sourcing when I get time. Real life is a pain in the ass ;)--SidiLemine 10:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've formatted the reference sites using the cite templates, so if you decide to do some sourcing, check out my sandbox. I have also finished reading and analyzing the reviews (the ones I got listed in there), but I currently have little to no time to thoroughly source anything. :( --Koveras ^☭ 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've begun copyediting for grammar, style, etc. It's amazing how fast you got this up. In the lead, it might be good to place the part about Noir at the end, as it's the less accessible to someone with no knowledge. Also, I was checking your sources, and I'm not sure how far we'll go with some in-world info without being accused of OR. I say, as soon as we're done copyediting, let's put this through PR and see what happens!--SidiLemine 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't justify how the scenes of Garthz-Sonica are related to Hong Kong. Can you find a source for that?--SidiLemine 13:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I had my doubts about Hong Kong, too, so I prefer to have it removed as insufficiently sourced. As for Noir info in the lead, I can't really think of a way of moving it down without completely rewriting the whole section. And with OR of the in-world, well, I tried my best to find definite statements within the series itself... --Koveras ^☭ 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's probably the better option for now. For the lead, I'm making an attempt to see how it flows. I know, and I think it's pretty well done; it's just that I think that the OR line isn't that well defined about in-fiction info; and that's one of the reason why articles about fiction try to be as out-of-world as possible. Anyway, I'm just saying so you can be prepared.... But what you did is already remarkable, and I think we could remove about half the statements in there and still have a pretty good article. --SidiLemine 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so. The point is, I don't want to remove any statements because I want a complete article, not simply a featured article, if you understand what I mean. :) Btw, how about copyediting the rest? %) --Koveras ^☭ 07:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Madlax OST got a "Best of 2004" award from AnimeReactor community... Is it OK to add it to the article? --Koveras ^☭ 09:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would fit pretty nicely at the end of the "reception" section, as you already talk about the OST there.--SidiLemine 11:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's where I wanted to put it, indeed... However, AnimeReactor is not a very official organization and their goals are a possible copyright violation... In other words, is it PC to link to their site? %) --Koveras ^☭ 12:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Not only is it officially a site dedicated to copyvio, but the link you have is to a forum, against WP:RS. Too bad, we'll have to do without.--SidiLemine 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Right now, all pictures (except in the characters section) are right-aligned which is a bit dull... Maybe we should left-align some? The problem is, I lack artistic taste to do that alone... --Koveras ^☭ 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actaully, I think there's kind of a guideline or something asking that most images be placed on the right, or else it would be "distracting". I'm not sure bu I remember someone demanding that all images in the beginning of a section be placed on the right, in the Lain GAC or FAC.... I personally find the article very professionnal-looking the way it is; maybe you could still add a few more, or enlarge some? Then you would have a good reason to have some on the left, so as not to cram the right side!--SidiLemine 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, currently, we are fulfilling the norm "one-image-per-prose-page" with the exception of Production and Releases sections, where tables take their place, and References, so additional images are not mandatory... I wondered if we could move "Madlax and Vanessa" and the "Boxed set" to the left, actually, but I wasn't sure. Can you preview it and then tell me your opinion? --Koveras ^☭ 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point with the norm. How about enlarging them then? ;) It's really hard to make out the three personnas in this format. I took a look, and I like it better on the right. Seems more serious: it is at its place illustrating the text, not the opposite.--SidiLemine 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Enlarging the pictures is not a problem: the trick is that their size is currently undefined, meaning that custom user settings for thumbsize are used by default. I have it set to 180px, what's yours? Because I feel it's a quite appropriate size... Though, for compatibility reasons, we definitely need to make the images size constant, you are right here. --Koveras ^☭ 16:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guess what I have found! %) A whole site with a nigh-official status filled with Madlax images. ^^; I'll replace those lousy screenshots in the chara section with the pictures from the website later today... --Koveras ^☭ 06:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good character pics. Any idea of the status (re fair use)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 10:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

{{character-artwork}}, naturally. :D --Koveras ^☭ 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done. What do you think? --Koveras ^☭ 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Much more harmonious. It does, however, highlight the length of the characters section, that has been bothering me from the very start. I understand they are all crucial characters (as they are all on the TV tokyo site and the cover), but maybe you could just manage a short text at the beginning of the section explaining how a vast core cast is an important part of the series' setting, or something of the like? It would also help with the anti-list crusaders. Nice catch anyway.--SidiLemine 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'll try to come up with something... --Koveras ^☭ 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Characters

I have "come up with something". Can you please take a look? --Koveras ^☭ 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That should do it. I tweaked a little the first sentance to stick closer to the ref, but couldn't find the second. It leads to the list of DVDs, maybe you should make it point directly to one of them?--SidiLemine 10:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, there are several inlets referenced in the article, each coming with another volume. I've had the scans of the leaflets posted here but I wasn't sure whether it's OK to link to a forum... --Koveras ^☭ 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think you need the inlets to be online to quote them. They're print material, arent't they? So just quote them as is, with as much references (impression, edition, whatever) as you can. To clear out doubts, I'd go with full quotes on this one as it's not the most easily verifiable material, but it's definitely WP:V and WP:RS. ---SidiLemine 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They are print material, for sure. :) But full quotes will be very long (especially the production refs, since basically, they are almost entirely taken from the inlets). Any suggestions? Oh, and what other reference information can I add? I mean, they are simply paper pieces included into the DVD packaging... --Koveras ^☭ 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've expanded the references as I saw suitable, couldn't figure out the thing with the quotes, though... --Koveras ^☭ 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. It's probably best to avoid linking altogether for the ref N°09, as the link doesn't back up the claim. Just saying it's in the leaflet should be enough. As for refs, etc, I was thinking about the DVD's details, but the way you did it should be good (or it'll be quickly fixed at FAC anyway). If someone expresses doubts, you can still send him to the scans on the beetrain forum, as an "off-record" ref. --SidiLemine 11:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the source in N°09 has following statement: "Margaret deals with Maurice Lopez, a potential suitor who may well be more interested in her money than in her (Elenore to the rescue – and after seeing her deal with Maurice in very effective fashion, I've decided we need to see more of her)", in other words, a brief summary of the episode on a secondary source... --Koveras ^☭ 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So, should I play over the changes from my sandbox to the actual article? --Koveras ^☭ 10:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've just discovered the {{cite episode}} template. Should we format the episode refs with it? ^^ Like this: "Gun Dance ~dance~". Madlax. Episode 01. 2004-04-05. 3:23 minutes in. TV Tokyo. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help) --Koveras ^☭ 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ready for GAC?

I think it's time we submit it for GAC. As I said before, I'm pretty sure it will need to be trimmed down to the essential sourced information for FA, but it might just have a chance for GA. Just need to cover the citation needed tags, and post it. If it doesn't do the trick this time, it'll give a better idea what to work on. I don't think more copyediting is needed right now.--SidiLemine 12:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still working on the references, so GAC nomination will have to wait till then. Plus, I have already started planning the trimming part, so the whole thing will probably have to be move until after Christmas, at least. Don't worry, we are gonna get it thus far, sooner or later. :) --Koveras ^☭ 13:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. I just found out that WP:COMICS had 8 FAs, and I'd really like to see the anime & manga project get there. I'm not counting the lists as FAs, so that leaves Madlax, Lain and Excel Saga for now. There is some talk about getting Neon Genesis Evangelion up to GA, possibly FA. It has some good potential, sources, background, etc. Would you like to be a part of that? I guess it will wait until after the holidays anyway, but by then everyone will be more or less done with their "own" articles, so that could lead to good teamwork.--SidiLemine 14:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The first wow I've made when I started working on anime articles was to never ever interfere with Eva's entries - I wonder how anyone managed to write something definite about it, in the first place. So, sorry, I can't be of much help there... -_- But that's leading us too far off topic, I'm afraid. --Koveras ^☭ 14:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Sidi, there is something I wanted to ask you: you said above that "it's OK to cite the anime, as long as you give a complete sentence, and advise the episode". However, on the peer review page, Monocrat (talk • contribs) expressed concerns "about the reliance on the primary source for citations". How should I see that point? %) --Koveras ^☭ 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is fairly complete. I'm changing the assessment to A-class for now. If anyone disagrees then feel free to move it back to B-class. --Squilibob 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... Monocrat is probably right in thinking heavy reliance would be frowned upon. My advices would be: 1) reduce the points where you need to rely on it to the minimum. This is good as it is by nature in-universe. 2) quote the sentences, or the exact sequence of action. This is good as it prevents you from taking too big "leaps", or to commit involuntary OR :). About the spoiling, most if not all should be in the plot section, that is already tagged. Use out of that should be very succinct, so as to avoid OR. All in all, I guess this will be part of the trimming down.

About the sources, check this out: User:GunnarRene/Sources, User:Kunzite/newtype, and User:Shiroi Hane/Resources. Once you know what issues you want, go for it! I'll have a look at your use of primary citations and let you know where I think it could be avoided.--SidiLemine 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry christmas Koveras!! Just pointing out that "Shoujo-Ai" stands as a single sub-section, and that's not good. You need to either merge it with the other themes, or revive the other sub-sections.--SidiLemine 11:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just that I'm worried about having too many headings. We can have either just one (which is bad, according to you) or four (which is bad IMO), or we could merge it all into one but then the section would become totally unstructured and illegible. --Koveras ^☭ 12:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would try to organize the section without using sub-headings. Make clear, distinct paragraphs for each sub-section you would have. You can also try to put up titles in bold, without cluttering the Table of Contents. These can be title-style, separate from the sub sections, or you can just put them at the beginning of the sub-sections. Hope this makes sense.--SidiLemine 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Koveras ^☭ 15:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, how does it look now? --Koveras ^☭ 10:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Simply brilliant.--SidiLemine 13:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming from someone who succeeded in making Lain a featured article, it's a high praise, thank you. ^^ Btw, congratulations with that. :) What do we do now? Technically, how do we nominate this one for GAC? --Koveras ^☭ 09:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates and then copy the listing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Good article candidates --Squilibob 11:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok... It's not "long", right? I mean, although it appears 43 kB big, the "main article prose" is only 24 thousand characters long (about 3800 words). --Koveras ^☭ 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In Firefox (Tools -> Page info) it reports 29.21 kB, so it isn't "long". --Squilibob 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

GAC

This article has been listed for GAC since the 14th of January.--SidiLemine 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And now it is reviewed!

I graded this article on 7 criteria:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

Congratulations, it passes! The only thing that I had a problem with was the table of voice actors- all of the major chars have it already listed under their descriptions, and the non-major chars aren't even listed, and thus don't need their voice actors listed either. I was going to put this article on hold for that, but since it was just one thing, I just edited it out myself. --PresN 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

YAAAY! Congrats Koveras, really grat work. I'd personally go with a staff photo if you could find it (about below), but if you don't a staff table is perfectly fine. Cheers again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 10:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think a photo is possible - in fact, I've had trouble getting a single picture of Mashimo. %) --Koveras ^☭ 11:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Condensing

Ok, with VA table removed, we once again have a whole lot of white space to the right of the staff list. Since I don't like that (it gives an impression that the article is "stretced long" with lists), I suggest that we make a table out of Staff section the way we had VAs formatted before. And music will become a separate section instead of a subsection. --Koveras ^☭ 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

With the previous issue solved, how about moving the TOC like this? Also, I have my doubts about Releases section: maybe we should move the link to the episodes list up a section and then rename the "Bible" subsection to "Franchise" and make it a section itself? Sidi, I need your critical point of view! ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

About the TOC, i'm not sure. It'd be nice at the bottom of the lead, but right there in the middle, it seems a bit weird. How about letting it stay at the bottom, but hidden by default? It would fit perfectly.

Now, about the images, here's what I'd do: move the ratings to "reception", and the DVD boxed set to the "Releases". Releases, Franchise and Music could all be moved into "Production", as sub-parts. This could also apply to plot, characters and themes in a part of their own, but I see it less necessary.

I would also get a picture of an OS uploaded and add it to the "Music" section. I would also look for a ord about Madlax dolls, etc. for the Franchise section.--SidiLemine 09:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How can TOC be defined hidden by default? I've temporarily named "plot + chara + themes" oversection "Story" (see my sandbox). Do you have any other suggestions?.. The picture of an OST cover will be no problem, I'll do it later today. Madlax action figures will be a bit tougher, though - I'll have to ask around on the fan forums. --Koveras ^☭ 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I was thinking about dolls is to have a picture in the "Franchise" part, actuelly ;D. I've found one in google images, so they must exist somewhere.--SidiLemine 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started researching the matter and found some material already (I've posted it here, so that this page doesn't get flooded). However, I don't think it's necessary to insert another image now that we have DVD and OST covers neighboring each other in the releases section... And we can always use The Bible cover, too, - at least, that'd be definite. --Koveras ^☭ 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmh.... Images. :) The bible was going to be my next proposal for the franchise.--SidiLemine 08:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But the question remains: do we really need the third picture in there? :) There is, of course a possibility of left-aligning the OST cover, then the third image would fit in, as well... --Koveras ^☭ 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated my sandbox with what I've found thus far. Any more suggestions? :) --Koveras ^☭ 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's good, it's really good.... I played a little with the images in the production area to try to get rid of the white space in "franchise", but with no success. I would suggest filler text :D. I'm still looking into seeting that "hide" button on hidden by default, I'll get back on that.--SidiLemine 09:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some research on the issue with the hide button myself but to my current knowledge, it's not possible with the wiki-engine... However, that's not that bad, in fact: I've had a chance to view our article on a wide XGA screen and saw that with the TOC hidden, the infobox totally messes up the images in the chara section. :) As for the filler text, wouldn't that contradict the "being crisp and concise" policy (WP:ATE)? ^^; --Koveras ^☭ 10:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

So, should we try our luck with FAC or first run the article through another PR? >_< --Koveras ^☭ 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

Regarding the recent formatting by Geuiwogbil (talk • contribs), I want to remark that although that formatting is all right for a VG article, in an anime series' one, it becomes a little messy: we have the name of the series in italics, the episode number, the time, the character's name in bold, and the quote itself without any separators around it. By comparison, in FFX, it's only the last two parts. In any case, my proposal would be to return the quotation marks, so that separating the formal data and the quote itself becomes easier. --Koveras ^☭ 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Koveras. Quotation marks should be used, as seen in Lain which is a FA. Kazu-kun 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the return to the previous quotation form. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Geuiwogbil 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't take it personally! We all know that you wanted to improve the article. :) And so did we, that is all. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 06:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Decapping

I feel it is more appropriate to take the sentences verbatim when quoting something. That is why I added a "sic" after that, in case someone missed it. --Koveras ^☭ 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ops, sorry about that. I really didn't see the sic mark. OK, it's reverted now. Kazu-kun 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, and apology accepted. :) --Koveras ^☭ 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ready for FAC?

Just asking... --Koveras ^☭ 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More than ready if you ask me.... That's way over PR level. Go for it! --SidiLemine 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In-universe

I think the "plot" and "characters" sections need some copy-editing. I mean, they're written entirely in-universe. You should write in a way that constantly reminds the reader that you're talking about a fictional work. Take a look on Lain for ideas. Make use of words like depicted, portrayed, introduced. Here some examples from Lain:

"Eiri Masami is introduced as the project director..."

"She [Lain] is first depicted as a shy junior high school..."

"The storyline introduces such a system with the Schumann resonance..."

You may also switch POV, writing from the audience perspective, or from the series itself:

"the viewer sees Lain realizing, after much introspection, that..."

"The last scenes feature her erasing everything connected to..."

"The series sees him trying to convince her through..."

As stated by WP:WAF, it's imposible to write the whole thing from an out-of-universe perspective, but one or two sentences per paragraph should do the trick. Kazu-kun 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• In regard to out-of-unvierse, I'd rather see it used only where appropriate as opposed to using it as seasoning. However, a copy-edit by two or three editors to weed out lingering deficiencies is a good idea. — Deckiller 05:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem with OoU writing in following: one has to find sources to every such statement. So can't just say "the storyline introduces something", you have to find a reliable source to back up that claim. =) Or that's just me having been made paranoid by Sidi... --Koveras ^☭ 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You need references for claims that have to do with analysis or interpretation, such as "The story is primarily based on the assumption that everything flows from human thought". However statments on explicit events of the series don't need additional support, for example:

"Eiri Masami is introduced as the project director on Protocol 7 (a successor to IPv6) for major computer company Tachibana Labs. He has secretly included code of his own creation to give himself control of the Wired through the wireless system described above. He then "uploaded” his consciousness into the Wired and died in real life a few days after. These details are unveiled around the middle of the series, but this is the point where the story of Serial Experiments Lain begins."

Of course, a well written plot summary needs both, an analysis of the storyline and some description of the main scenes (plot points). Kazu-kun 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, I've been trying to reword it for over 36 hours but this is as much as I could do without making the sections BIG... Will one fourth wall-breaking sentence per paragraph do? :-/ --Koveras ^☭ 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A few comments/questions.

I saw this article on the FAC list. Made a few minor changes (also, suite 101 . com is apparently on the spamblacklist, so that ref may have to be messed with), but some other comments:

pays much attention to the interaction of various factions rather than individual characters,

Okay, this has two references backing it up, but they're from reviews of the second DVD before later episodes were released. I would have said this too at the time, but it's not really true in light of the whole series. There's one faction, Enfant, and it controls all the pseudo-factions (the sides of the civil war, the big evil corporation, etc.) except Margaret Burton's checkbook, pretty much. For sure, the factional conflict issue is raised earlier, but it's dropped nigh-completely later, and the only ones opposing Enfant are individual characters. I'd be in favor of dropping this comment.

Another comment while on the lead section: There's currently no reference to Yuki Kajiura. I don't think that I was the only person who watched the show mainly under the assurance of at least having awesome music.

A large primary cast of distinctive characters is essential to the plot of Madlax, spiraling ever closer and evolving alongside the central ideas of the series,[10] as well as, according to the composer Yuki Kajiura, serving as the milestones for Margaret Burton's (マーガレット・バートン, Māgaretto Bāton?) inner growth, one of the main topics of the show (see Themes of Madlax).

Okay, I don't have access to the insert that's referenced here, but isn't this a bit too much hyperbole? What does "spiraling ever closer and evolving along the central ideas of the series" even mean? I tried something a bit simpler.

Madlax (マドラックス, Madorakkusu?), a charismatic kind young woman

For sure, the series says she's a "kind killer" (not that her actions support this, but details), but not so sure on the "charismatic" part. Is she called that somewhere? I don't really recall her leading people, making tons of friends, and so on, but I could be off-base here.

Another agent of Enfant later in the series is Limelda Jorg

Isn't she more an agent of the G-S government? Which, granted, is controlled by Enfant, but I don't think she knows that at first.

Failing to complete the proper ritual, Carrossea, who has been supporting her, dies,

Wait. The ritual succeeded just fine and that's why he died, which is what the plot summary article says too. Am I missing something here? Perhaps a better phrasing would be "Carrossea's memories are returned as well at his request, but he finds out that he died 12 years ago and dissappears" or the like?

Monday commences a ritual to start a new world war

Not sure if there's a good term for this, but that wasn't quite my impression. He wanted a radical democracy where everybody does whatever they like uninhibited, and he also thought (apparently correctly?) that people become raving psychotic loons when this happens. "World war" implies coordinated clashing powers with organized armies, while he was going for something more like "worldwide murderous madness and disorder."

like Margaret and Madlax's connection to each other, were invented by Kuroda and him in a state of alcohol intoxication.

Okay, yes, this is an encyclopedia, but this phrasing is entirely too sterile. How about "while drunk" with the blue link still heading to alcohol intoxication?

The themes and reception section

Mm. This gets into a fundamental problem with the "cite sources" approach of Wikipedia. Suppose an average work (movie, book, TV series, whatever) gets 50 good reviews and 50 bad reviews. It's quite possible to, by selectively citing, make it look like it received generally positive reviews with a few malcontents, or alternately mostly cite the bad reviews and make it look awful with only a few people who enjoyed it. Not sure if there's a good way around it.

Anyway, I don't want to insert my own sophistry by randomly citing bad reviews, but I'll just say that lines like "Critics called Madlax "thought-provoking"" suggest a rather more positive response than I understand / hope happened, since critics have also called Madlax horrible and not thought-provoking too. Same with the "received only moderate (though generally approving) attention from the critics." Also, statements like "which lead some to name Madlax the better of the two" (referencing Noir) I think are best left out if included at all; it's a truism that some people will think Madlax is better than Noir, but I would be completely shocked if it was anything approaching a majority, which this statement implies. SnowFire 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally we have someone here who actually watched Madlax. %) Replies in order:

• I see... Well, I didn't know that with S101 and it worked just fine with me... Should I remove it?
• OK, we can remove that, I just wanted to explain HOW it is different from Noir and didn't find anything better in the reviews.
• Ouch, sorry about forgetting Kajiura, my bad. :( I'll do something ASAP.
• That with the "spiraling" was reworded by Sidi, originally it read so.
• Should I replace "charismatic" with "beautiful"? ^^ Dozens of plot intros use that word. %)
• Limelda works for Carrossea as early as in episode 5. :)
• I just had enormous trouble summarizing in one sentence what exactly happened to Carrossea. :) You may gave better luck, so go ahead. ^^
• Again, trouble with finding words. :) English isn't my mother tongue. :)
• Why not? "While drunk" may sound encyclopedic enough...
• Well, generalized statements are a headache, I agree. I feel bad about removing them though... Do we really have to? %) --Koveras ^☭ 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I gave a shot to putting in some of the changes. I only removed two of those comments that seem a bit flimsy; I think the article holds up without them. There's no need to mention the thought-provoking comment when discussing the themes (Though I suppose it could be put into Reception, but eh). I also changed around a bit of the criticism; the ref on the "slow pacing of the early episodes" went to THEM, and while other reviews (like the ANN one) complained about slow pacing, THEM didn't- they thought the first episodes were just plain bad in general. I refashioned it to be a bit more about the style of the action sequences, which leads into the "realism vs. supernatural" issue later.

Also: I put back the "See alsos" to the child articles that Decikiller removed. Since they are very clearly spin-off articles, I think it's appropriate; the Saffron FA does the same thing with its child articles, and Final Fantasy VIII (which I know Decikiller worked on) has a handy template at the bottom linking to its related child articles. (While on the topic... Is there any need to say "Fictional setting of Madlax" in that article's title? I'd think that "Setting of Madlax" implies that just fine.) SnowFire 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please use the FAC page to your advantage. You can get more feedback there, and the FAC director will notice comments on the FAC page (not on the talkpage). — Deckiller 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychology Connections?

Is it possible that Margaret Madlax and Letita all represent Freud's theories of the Id, ego, and super-ego just a thought, I have nothing to really back this up with. --67.177.36.225 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very interesting idea and may even be the case but without backup, we can't put it into the article, seeing how it is nominated for FA right now... --Koveras ^☭ 06:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I may not be able to find it, it could be me drawing my own conclusions. And I know Orignal Research is not premitted by Wiki. But glad to see this is a FA. --24.10.234.104 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FA

The article has been promoted! A big thanks to all, especially SidiLemine, SnowFire, Kazu-kun, and Deckiller. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RhynCheck Dead Links

Rhynri 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Has checked this page and found there to be 2 dead links... ref. [60]^ (sect. [11]^) && 'External Links: MadLax in AnimeNfo... (Unsure of Marking Strategy Here...)

ActiveAnime changed their URL format, apparently, and discarded the old one. Not a very professional thing to do, but who am I to have expectations... Fixed the links. Also, to my knowledge, the link to AnimeNfo in EL works perfectly. :) --Koveras ^☭ 07:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Koveras. My 'RhynCheck' is fairly simple... I basically check for a rendered site (meaning - it shows up) for every link. If there is an error in route it could lead to me mistakingly marking the link broken. (I'm not perfect and neither is my internet connection.) But I do try, and if the link turns out not to be broken, my apologies! I usually double check broken links for confirmation. It could also have been a server side glitch... Glad to hear it's working! Rhynri 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant. :) AnimeNfo tends to have outages from time to time. :) --Koveras ^☭ 09:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple

This goes to everyone who participated in the improvement of this article: does anyone feel up to translating the thing into Simple English? :D Unfortunately, I can't get the German translation any higher than GA status because Germans have weird criteria for their FAs (e.g.: "FA must be at least 80 kB big"; it's not explicitly stated but implied). And I don't speak any other languages. ^^; Though I must also admit that I've never edited Simple English articles before so I may not be aware of customs and content guidelines there... --Koveras ^☭ 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)