Talk:Walkin' Butterfly

Reception

By way of collecting information for a Reception section (and establishing this series' notability), here's some links to reviews for digesting:

• ANN v1 - used
• About.com v1 - used
• AnimeOnDVD/Mania v1 - used
• AnimeOnDVD/Mania v2 - unfortunately, not very useful
• PopCultureShock v1 - used
• PopCultureShock v2&3
• Jason Thompson

It's also been covered by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, tho' not really deep enough to really be usable. Posting these here in case someone finds them useful before I get a change to work on this. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the Comics Worth Reading page in the External links section, but alas that blog doesn't qualify as a reliable source for review purposes. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: actually, it does -- the author is a long-time comics reviewer for Publishers Weekly and for the purposes of reviewing manga has been approved as a reliable source (at WT:RS and at WP:FACs). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, series was a finalist for YALSA's list of best manga of 2008: ANN article - used —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There - Reception section swotted up. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Added another (with another comparison to Moyoco Anno) till such time as it can be used. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

When I got her, the Infobox claimed the series is josei (and certainly it's marketed that way in North America). However, according to ja:Vanilla (雑誌), the magazine it was initially serialized in was shoujo. Anyone have anything to reconcile the difference? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that it was released under the shōjo imprint Aurora, that should classify it as a shōjo manga. --Farix (Talk) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The marketing of licensed versions don't always replicate the original market, and sometimes diverge wildly, though. And that aside, I'd thought Aurora was marketing it under their josei imprint, no? Though the website is frustratingly vague about it.... —Quasirandom (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the Aurora editions of WB are marked for 16+. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Right -- I've gone ahead and changed it to shoujo in the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Annnnd just to add to the confusion, every single review of the English edition calls the series josei. Some even make pointed comparisons of the art to Yayoi Ogawa's, and one to Moyoco Anno's as well. Given those reliable sources saying this, we might have trouble justifying the shoujo label as unverified. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Production

The back of volume 1 has an interview with the mangaka, which includes her account of the genesis of the series and some of her inspirations, including models. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done —Quasirandom (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

Next things to do to improve the article:

• Edit that all-but-marketing copy of a Plot summary into an actual summary of the entire series.
  • I'm waiting to do this until I get a copy of volume four, so know how it turns out. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Expand the character descriptions, referencing as much as possible about personality and other interpretations to reviewers (unfortunately, this so far is only possible for Michiko and Mihara; I've collected some useful quotes not already used in Reception in my sandbox).
  • Ah, found one for Tago as well. Started this, but what we really need is volume 4 to come out already. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded production information about the j-drama (some non-controversial stuff can be translated from the official website).

• Find a reference for initial serialization in Vanilla (it's so stated in two separate ja.wiki articles, but I haven't yet found a usable citation) (nor can I find Kodansha's Vanilla website).

Eventually, we'll need the chapter list and volume summaries. And to write up the Development (see previous section). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)