Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fruits Basket chapters/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:31, 7 June 2008 [1].
This is a list of the volumes and chapters of the manga Fruits Basket. In compiling it I followed the guildelines in WP:MOS-AM and the model of other featured lists for manga, and issues raised during peer review have, I believe, been addressed. I believe it qualifies under the criteria for featured lists, the volume summaries are not of excessive length, other relevant information is covered, it is referenced, and it satisfies other guidelines for writing about works of fiction. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I think the lead should include a mention of the anime series adapted from the manga. :) Perhaps the references linked in the headers of the table could instead be moved to the bottom in a general references section (similar to what is done with ep lists)? Summaries all seem like a good length, though maybe could benefit from a copy editing. I didn't deep scan, but noticed a minorly ackward phrasing and slightly boo boo in the first summary. (steals some of your formatting for the Marmalade Boy chapter list LOL)Collectonian (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to argue, but is it really appropriate to mention the anime adaptation in an article about the manga's publication details? For the sourcing, I'm not thrilled with using generalized rather than footnoted, but I'll give it a go. The five manga FLs all footnote, though only one in this style. I'll give the prose another pass this weekend, though I'd hoped I'd taken care of the more awkward phrases this time. *sigh* —Quasirandom (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was thinking more of having a second person go through, since I know I'm my own worse copyeditor :-P For the anime, I think it is appropriate to mention it at least briefly, if nothing but a single sentence, since it is based on the manga chapters. Much like in the anime episode list, we mention it was based on the manga. For the references, I know its mostly a style thing so not something I'd oppose over (though if you try, don't forget to move them to footnotes section LOL). I like the general myself because it keeps the tables clean, but either works for me :) Unrelated side note, but where did you find the Chuang Yi release dates? I've been struggling looking for those on another list where they were the first publisher. Collectonian (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There -- how's that for the general style? (I'll have to reconstruct where the SG release dates came from -- IIRC from three months ago, it was a foreign language bookseller, so not a citable reliable source but I had no reason to doubt the accuracy.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. I think a foreign language bookseller is fine to use if no other sources are available.Collectonian (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, of course, WP:RS strongly discourages it. I've been working (as I can -- life's been lifelike this week) on finding citation that better conform to policy, but so far all I've found is library catalog listings which confirm, in each case, the year of publication but don't list the months. Aside from this and an outside copyedit, anything else? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, RS does discourage it, but in the absence of anything else, its considered the "last resort" sort of option. :) And nope, just needs the copyedit and should all be good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now you just need the copyedit. Chuang Yi finally added the release dates on their site! Yay! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *blink* Right. And I'm working on that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, of course, WP:RS strongly discourages it. I've been working (as I can -- life's been lifelike this week) on finding citation that better conform to policy, but so far all I've found is library catalog listings which confirm, in each case, the year of publication but don't list the months. Aside from this and an outside copyedit, anything else? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. I think a foreign language bookseller is fine to use if no other sources are available.Collectonian (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There -- how's that for the general style? (I'll have to reconstruct where the SG release dates came from -- IIRC from three months ago, it was a foreign language bookseller, so not a citable reliable source but I had no reason to doubt the accuracy.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was thinking more of having a second person go through, since I know I'm my own worse copyeditor :-P For the anime, I think it is appropriate to mention it at least briefly, if nothing but a single sentence, since it is based on the manga chapters. Much like in the anime episode list, we mention it was based on the manga. For the references, I know its mostly a style thing so not something I'd oppose over (though if you try, don't forget to move them to footnotes section LOL). I like the general myself because it keeps the tables clean, but either works for me :) Unrelated side note, but where did you find the Chuang Yi release dates? I've been struggling looking for those on another list where they were the first publisher. Collectonian (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to argue, but is it really appropriate to mention the anime adaptation in an article about the manga's publication details? For the sourcing, I'm not thrilled with using generalized rather than footnoted, but I'll give it a go. The five manga FLs all footnote, though only one in this style. I'll give the prose another pass this weekend, though I'd hoped I'd taken care of the more awkward phrases this time. *sigh* —Quasirandom (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies, starting tomorrow I'm going to be traveling for I hope no more than the next few days but possibly longer, and my internet access will be spotty at best. I've requested a copyedit at the project page but otherwise may not be able to deal with issues raised here until my return. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know nothing about the manga or typical manga-list style, but it looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, for a list of this size, there simply are not enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 00:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Don't wikilink the bold title of the lead section, per WP:LS#Bold title
- Refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
- Per MOS:NUM, use figures or words for numbers consistently, so not "19", "23" and "twenty-six" in the same article.
- Why is rat and dog wikilinked, but not cat?
And that's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actual article has not been touched since May 17. It appears this FLC has been abandoned. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Cr 1, poorly written, especially the narrative descriptions. Random examples: "tried to pretend to be". "Conflicted over his growing feelings for Tohru because of the approaching deadline for his confinement"—euuw.
- MOS breach: use "logical" punctuation.
- Overlinked. Why "English", for heaven's sake. And frankly, the messy blue could be reduced by delinking the names of anglophone countries.
- Fair-use justification on the info page needs copy-editing. And can you debold the messy copyright box?
Needs work by you, and fresh eyes to copy-edit the WHOLE thing carefully. TONY (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm back online -- thanks for your patience, but life got lifelike. I'll try to deal with the comments above tonight and tomorrow. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies, yes, this FLC has been abandoned. Life has remained, er, lifelike (forcing me to take a wikibreak) and I haven't had the time to address the (quite valid) concerns. Sorry to make others go through the effort of evaluating the list without my being able to follow through. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.