Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto Uzumaki/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2017 [1].

Naruto UzumakiEdit

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a fictional character whom is a eponymous protagonist of the series Naruto. The article is a GA article with mid-importance in the Anime and Manga WikiProject. A peer review was opened regarding this article, and issues with the article has been discussed and fixed. It has also been copy-edited recently. I have done things on my part for this article like expand it, fix dead links, and archive all of the links listed in the references section. I have a feeling that this article may be ready for FA. Thanks, MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Tintor2 (Passed)

Doing the Source review:

  • All references are linked, pass reliability and have archives in case of deletion. As a result, I think the article passes the source review. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Tintor2: Does this mean you support this nomination? The nomination viewer script doesn't count the word pass as a support. MCMLXXXIX 17:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@1989: You see, as far as I know, the FACs are divided in three parts: the general prose review, the source review and the image review. Since I used to work on this article some time ago, I my prose review would biased so I decided to do the source review. Also, another suggestion I could give you to have more feedback is going to other reviews like List of Blood-C episodes where the nominator also needs feedback too. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • In the lead, the phrase "added a harsh past" sounds a little odd to me. I understand what you mean, but I would refine/revise it to make it clear you are referencing the character's past.
  • In the first line of the lead's third paragraph, you have variations of the word "popular" in the same sentence. I would change this for variety.
  • I don't think you need to say "Naruto's character". You can just say "Naruto" or you could adjust to "Naruto's character development".
  • I could not find any problems with the "Appearances" section. It reads very smoothly to me, with only minor instances standing out to me (such as the "who, as a newborn," reads a little awkward to me). I just want to post a reminder that I am not familiar with this character or the manga/anime at all so I cannot comment on the accuracy, but it looks really good to me.
@1989: Overall, you have done a wonderful job on the article. My comment focus on some awkward areas in the lead that could be corrected (I always find the lead to be difficult, probably because it is the last part of an article that I work on). It is really cool to read through an article about a manga/anime character, and it actually inspires me to trying working on a similar article. Once my minor comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this article. Everything looks in shape to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: Thanks! If you'd like, could you also do an image review? MCMLXXXIX 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course; I am currently at work, but I will do an image review later tonight if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There was only one thing that stood out to me, a simple punctuation/grammar mistake that I've just gone and fixed. Everything else about this article seems sound. I'll give this my Support to this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Image review by Aoba47 (Passed)

Image reviewEdit

  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections. It does seem a little odd to me to include the sketch of Naruto in the "Appearances" section as I would imagine that it would be more appropriate in a background/development one instead, but given its connection to the film, it is fine as it currently stands.
  • Both images for the voice actors (Junko Takeuchi and Flanagan) and the image of [File:Paris Manga 13 - Hiroshi Matsuyama - 001.jpg Hiroshi Matsuyama] were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • The other three images mostly have appropriate tags. Could you please be more specific about the source for this one? Is the source really titled (Naruto artbook 3)? Also include the year of its publication?
  • @1989: Once my minor question is addressed, then this will pass my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Everything looks good then, and this passes the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Prose review by Narutolovehinata5 (Passed)

General prose reviewEdit

  • The article is well-written and is among the best-written articles I have seen for an anime character. However, there are currently a few minor issues I have seen: "Dub" should not be capitalized in the sentence "she decided to look the show up and felt the release of the English Dub would be popular". Also, there are a few inconsistencies in the reception section, such as switching between "ANN" and "A.N.N.". Carl Kimlinger's full name is mentioned twice when his full name should probably only be mentioned on the first mention. But these are easily resolvable problems and once these are fixed I'll be happy to give this a pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice work, this is a pass for the prose review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@1989: Also, a suggestion: if the article gets promoted, I suggest you nominate the article for Today's Featured Article for either October 3 (the anime's 15th anniversary) or October 10 (Naruto's birthday). It's up to you what date to use. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I plan to get Naruto to FA after this one ends. I already got it to GA, and it had a peer review, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With that being said, I'll be nominating this article for TFA on the character's birthday, if this passes. MCMLXXXIX 09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I been going over the article few times, trying to find any issues with it. Seeing that I can't find any problems with it, I will go on and Support this nomination. - AffeL (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I went over the article a couple of times too, and I couldn't find anything wrong with it. I checked all of the sources I could access, but found no issues there. This article is comprehensive enough without going into too much detail over lore, and it is well written. JAGUAR  10:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by
Comments by
  • Comment - has the scholarly literature about Naruto been surveyed? The following book has an entire Part 2 covering "Naruto as a Cultural Crossroads", of six chapters.
  • Berndt, Jacqueline; Kümmerling-Meibauer, Bettina, eds. (2013). Manga's Cultural Crossroads. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 9781134102839.

-- (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Upgrading to Oppose - the scholarly literature on Naruto (the series) has not been surveyed for criticism of Naruto (the character), and so I believe this article does not meet criteria 1c of the Featured Article criteria, where ""a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" has been undertaken. Without any investigation of scholarly literature about Naruto, this article cannot be considered "well-researched". -- (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: What is they talking about? MCMLXXXIX 01:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. I believe the editor is saying that they've located scholarly literature about the subject of the article. They are opposing over their concern that the article cannot be considered well-researched if you have not consulted scholarly literature. --Laser brain (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've located scholarly literature about the parent series the main character comes from, but the rest is correct. -- (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've requested this text through an interlibrary loan to make it available to 1989. It may take a week or so to receive it, and further time for 1989 to incorporate relevant material into the article. Please hold for a bit. ~ Rob13Talk 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The citation for Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions seems to be incomplete as it doesn't have the chapter title.-- (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The ISBN is fine, it's available on Amazon. MCMLXXXIX 10:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the older ISBN doesn't show up as being valid when I search for it in Google Books. The citation could still be improved by adding the book chapter title, though. -- (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't originally add the citation, so I can't help with that. MCMLXXXIX 11:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it was fixed. MCMLXXXIX 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it was easy enough to do. -- (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • On the topic of scholarly literature, I'm assisting 1989 with a lit review. There are extremely limited English-language academic sources, however. Some Japanese-language sources are available, but I don't think it's particularly reasonable to expect a reviewer to conduct research into sources from another language when high-quality sources are available in their own language. So far, I've identified one additional academic source in addition to the source provided by the IP above. ~ Rob13Talk 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - that's a great step in the right direction. Where have you been searching? -- (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been searching through my institution's search engine. They do a pretty good job of interfacing with the various databases and print resources I have access to, but I will check a few good databases manually to verify there isn't more out there. I can't reveal the institution for obvious reasons, but I will say it has access through its print resources, databases, or relationships to other libraries to almost any resource present online or in the United States. I volunteer quite a bit at WP:RX. To the nominator's credit, the first source I found for him was actually already referenced in the article (Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions). This is an academic source edited by a professor at St. Thomas University. The cited chapter is by another professor at the same institution. Both have PhDs. ~ Rob13Talk 22:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Is the citation for Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions accurate? I raised some issues with it above and tried to fix it myself. -- (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
"Big Heroes on the Small Screen: Naruto and the Struggle Within" is indeed the chapter title. ~ Rob13Talk 22:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@1989: I've sent you two more articles that you may find helpful. They're related to Naruto in the context of religion. I didn't read fully, but at least one also talks about Naruto's emerging role as a noteworthy example of a Japanese literary "hero" figure. ~ Rob13Talk 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've checked DOAJ and found

  • Born, Christopher A. (1 April 2010). "In the Footsteps of the Master: Confucian Values in Anime and Manga". ASIANetwork Exchange: A Journal for Asian Studies in the Liberal Arts. 17 (2): 39. doi:10.16995/ane.206.

I've done a quick add, but a more in-depth reading of it might prove useful to the article. -- (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's one of the ones I sent him, just for the record. Didn't realize it was open access when I accessed it. ~ Rob13Talk 23:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It could really use the eyes of someone who knows Naruto inside and out. @BU Rob13: - could you please post up the citation for any other sources you've found here? -- (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a time sink for me. If you create an account and email me, I'm happy to send you the sources. Otherwise, I'll leave it to the nominator to type up the cites when adding to the article. ~ Rob13Talk 04:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate that - this is more of a time sink than I knew when I first asked, too. Are there lots of sources, then? Just so that people have an idea of how much (or little) there is out there. -- (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
There's relatively little that isn't already written in the article. A couple sources I've found are already incorporated in the article. I found a couple new sources focusing on religious aspects (including the one you cited above). I'm also still working to access the original source you pointed out. ~ Rob13Talk 15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Rob - it's helpful to know that the measure of the literature has largely been taken, but there's still a couple more potential sources that could be added. -- (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Such as? MCMLXXXIX 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Rob has said that he's emailed them to you. -- (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, you already used one of the articles he sent me, so I have to use the second one, and the other one he's planning to send me. Besides those two articles, there's nothing left to look for. MCMLXXXIX 21:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Because I don't know Naruto as well as you do, it would be helpful if you could look at the 'Confucian values' article to make sure that the important points have been used. It's encouraging to think that the measure of the literature has largely been taken. I also have some nitpicks below about translating source titles and "Jinchuriki" - will you please address them? -- (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll address them tomorrow. MCMLXXXIX 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks great! I love the work you've done adding Plumb's kitsune criticism to the article, and getting more of the point of the Confucian values article. -- (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To add a nitpick to the sourcing section, the Japanese web sources could benefit from a more liberal use of |trans_title=. -- (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick again, but I found a couple more - could you please add translated titles to these? -- (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To add a nitpick to the prose section, "Jinchuriki" is used twice, but never defined. It is not used at all in the main Naruto series article. -- (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! -- (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The new additions might need a bit of copyediting - I've heard it said that 'claim' can be value-laden, and I'm not certain what the seal is a catalyst for - Naruto's growing maturity? -- (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've also accidentally deleted something I just couldn't understand. -- (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Accidentally? Do you want me to readd it? MCMLXXXIX 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I deleted it so I could see what I was doing when adding in the text that I did. If you think an important point has been lost, please reword it when adding it back in. -- (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I added more stuff. MCMLXXXIX 13:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What does "Naruto's character development is related to a modern American hero, but became a higher figure in the series accidentally to build and restore peace" mean? -- (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence. MCMLXXXIX 23:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's clearer. -- (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I can no longer oppose this nomination on the grounds that it does not reflect the available scholarly literature. Well done! -- (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Will support if you can explain where this line "In Road to Ninja: Naruto the Movie, an alternate version of the character named Menma appears as the main antagonist of the film." is cited. other than this, great job! Eddie891 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I linked the article, hope that's good enough. MCMLXXXIX 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Support. (I apologize if I ask or say stupid things. I am still figuring things out on Wikipedia)Eddie891 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support From a perspective of someone who is familiar with anime, but does not do articles about them, I find the article to be easy to understand to new readers. I also checked for any disambiguations and connection issues, but none are found. Good job! Erick (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Congrats on doing a great job here, I fully agree that this article is ready for a FA. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This is looking like it is getting close, but I'd like a little more commentary. I don't think we have had an in depth look at the prose. We are fine on 1b and 1c (comprehensive and well researched) based on the above comments, but I'd feel happier if someone could give the prose (1a) a little going over. Additionally, although we have a source review above, no-one has checked the sources for reliability and formatting. As I believe this is the nominators first FAC, we would also require a spot check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. I'm also not convinced about the image review as we have a lot of FU images. I also believe that the image of Hiroshi Matsuyama in costume could be a problem as the issue has been raised before that costumes can be copyright, which makes cosplay images problematic. But I'm no expert, so I'd like another image reviewer to just check this out. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the sources are passable since I was the user who made it GA. Sites like anime now are often cited by anime news network. On the other hand, I have mixed thoughts about using crunchyroll due to previos feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
2nd Image review by Nikkimaria (Passed)

Image review

  • Not seeing a strong enough rationale to include both File:NarutoUzumakiKishimoto.jpg and File:NarutoUzumakiPartIIKishimoto.jpg - we would need justification why it's necessary for the reader to see both. Similarly, there should be further explanation of why we need the sketched version (File:Adultnaruto.jpg) in addition to the fully realized version. These FURs are pretty minimal.
  • File:Naruto_Shiki_Fujin.svg: what is the copyright status of this design?
  • See here regarding the cosplay issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't understand. How strong do you want the rationales to be? Is the reason wanting readers to know what the character looks like not enough in the Purpose of Use section? I expanded it a little bit. The third image may not be needed, as it doesn't really provide context.
  • It seems that the author made a replica of the seal with SVG software. It was just recently added to the article.
  • The cosplay image shouldn't really be an issue IMO, unless you think otherwise. MCMLXXXIX 03:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The "primary means of visual identification" argument is useful for a single image, usually the lead/infobox image - it's not clear to me why it would be essential to see the different ages.
  • Okay, but what is the copyright status of the design itself?
  • I think it well could be, although as the link indicates the matter is complicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tintor2: Would it be better to have only one image of what the character looks like, and I could update the lead image to his adult form?
  • Isnt there by any chance an image that has both parte 1 and 2 Narutos. I would definitely agree to remove his young adult sketch considering he has few appearances.Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It's derivative work, it's a reproduction of the seal in SVG form.
  • Would you like me to remove the images referenced in your second and third bullet points? MCMLXXXIX 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What if the article described what the character looked like in Part II, would it be necessary to keep the image for context? MCMLXXXIX 15:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand it's a derivative work - the point of a derivative work though is that it's derived from something, and that something has a copyright status.
  • If the changes between the two versions are significant, and you can source content that describes the significance of these changes, then that could justify the use of both images. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It was derived from the manga, which is copyrighted. I'll remove the image.
  • Do you mean like conception or what I said above? MCMLXXXIX 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I added material, and changed the rationale for the Part II image.
  • I removed the derivative work, and the cosplay image. -- MCMLXXXIX 11:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Do you want to continue this image review? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The remaining images are workable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have been giving this a good read and prose wise, I don't find any issues with it. The article on the character was quite an interesting read. You have my Support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I narrowly want to comment on the cosplay issue. The Supreme Court ruled just today in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that the relevant test for copyright is that the useful article (e.g. the costume) must (a) be conceivable as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and; (b) that work of art would be eligible for copyright on its own, separate from the useful article. In this case, the costume itself is made up of simple geometric shapes and colors, and so it is not protectable. That means the clothing itself fails the second prong of that test. As for the head band and face paint, that's likely a copyrightable design feature of the Naruto character, but the principle of de minimis likely applies here. This is especially true because, as rendered on the page, the design on the headband is not clearly visible. (That may sound like a fair use argument, but it is not. See c:COM:DM.) So the short answer is that I do not think the image is an issue. There will need to be a broader discussion on Commons about what this ruling means for useful articles. We may well need to dump a large number of our images based on this ruling. ~ Rob13Talk 05:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I removed the image. -- MCMLXXXIX 08:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
2nd Source review by Jaguar (Passed)
Source review from Jaguar

I'm just going to skim through the sources themselves to see if they're all formatted correctly etc, and then afterwards I'll start verifying:

  • Ref 2 - is Naruto the name of the website? Shouldn't Cartoon Network be in the website field and Time Warner in the publisher field?
  • Ref 7 is not archived
  • Ref 79 says "Viz Video" but the url goes to
  • Ref 99, 115, 116 and 117 needs IGN in the website field and Ziff Davis as its publisher

Those were all of the minor issues I could find regarding formatting. I'll start spotchecking the refs now and will leave the comments later as I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. JAGUAR  13:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jaguar: Ref 2 is not a website. Cite web and Cite episode are different. The ref cites the episode that the information is presented.
  • I fixed the other issues you had. MCMLXXXIX 13:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just spent an hour spotchecking the sources and couldn't find any discrepancies at all, so I'll support on the sourcing side of things. Overall this is a well pieced article. JAGUAR  15:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm still not seeing that anyone gave the prose a last check. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes I did notice it, but I was hoping for a little more feedback than a one-line comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The prose can definitely do with a bit of tightening. I have done this so far but will be busy for a bit before getting back to it in a day or two. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sarastro1: I think Casliber's done with tightening the prose. Does his input count or do I need more feedback? 1989 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I did what I could. I think more could be done but I found it heavy going after a while. No real gross clangers outstanding but just some overall massaging would help. 12:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Casliber: Are you suggesting that the article be copy-edited further? 1989 13:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect that it wouldn't hurt. I find it hard to pick up new things after a couple of read-throughs, not sure whether reader fatigue or just tuning them out...but I do think the prose could be trimmed a bit more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, 1989, I can't take this on. I'm busy with other things. I notice that the article is being edited constantly which my be part of the problem. Many of the edits are a matter of style rather than substance. Also, the suggestion that the prose could be "trimmed a bit more" is too vague to be useful to any future editor. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
At the request of the nominator, I read through and made these edits. I fixed a couple of minor errors, but otherwise just tweaking the prose. My edits are mostly cosmetic, I couldn't see much wrong with the prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: I think that should be it. 1989 08:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think we have enough commentary and support to pass now. I agree with Cas to some extent that this feels like there could be trims made here and there, but I'm not sure that my feeling is enough to hold up promotion, and it would be largely cosmetic. I had a read through and the only two things that I noticed were "The orange in his costume makes Naruto pop and the blue parts are complementary", where I'm not sure what we mean by "pop", and the use of "pants" which I think might be a little less professional than we should aim for. Otherwise, if Cas or anyone else has any other little trims or tweaks, these can be raised on the talk page. I would like to thank the nominator for their patience with this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.