Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Peer review/2008

Tohru Honda

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what additional work may be needed before nominating it as a GAC. I've attempted to follow the guidelines for a character article at WP:MOS-AM. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a brief summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Development is not there now, as one example.
• Provide context for the reader - an interested reader will not necessarily know who Rin and Hanajima are in Several other characters, including Kyo,[11] Rin,[12] and Hanajima,[13] tell her she needs to look out for her own interests and not shoulder everyone else's burdens. for example. Or why is she living in a tent when she has a mother and grandfather?
• Make sure the article is written from an out-of-universe perspective, see WP:IN-U. The plot section seems to be overly long and detailed, while reception needs to be expanded.
• Per MOS:QUOTE and WP:PUNC the punctuation usually comes outside of quotes, so change However while "Tohru is notorious in the series for being happy and cheerful even in times of great taxation,"[59]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's helpful -- thanks. (And a "darn it" to myself, as I keep forgetting that Wikipedia interprets logical quotation differently than the house style I'm used to.) One thing, though: could you expand some more on the out-of-universe language -- what passages were you particularly noticing as a concern? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'll see what I can do to compress the plot, now that I have some distance. However, she is the protagonist of a long and complicated series. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think part of it is that the lead has plot but not much development or reception, and the reception section is fairly short. This makes an already long plot section seem even longer. I read the MOS guide on anime article - linked in the talk page - and the Fruits Basket article. The plot there is muc shorter and may give some ideas. The reception section includes some quotes that mention Tohru, such as The real strength of Natsuki Takaya's artwork isn't that that it looks good—though it definitely does, from its beautiful characters to the intricately rendered textures of their clothing—but how well it communicates mood and emotions. Not content to rely on facial expressions, though she does them well, Takaya is particularly apt at using shading and shadows to indicate character's mental states... The details of character's emotions—the disparity between Tohru's private emotions and her public front, the punishing intensity of Kyo's feelings for Tohru—are not only discernable but tangible, all without a word being spoken. —Carl Kimlinger, Anime News Network[52] Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not happy with how I handled the text of the Reception section as it is -- maybe it's time to scratch it and start over. As for the Development, I know of some additional material that can be used (the DVD commentaries) but I haven't been able to access it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how it stands and see if what additional work may be needed before attempting to nominate it for GA or FA class.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - seems like it is already pretty close to GA. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicky:

• A model article is useful for ideas to follow.
• Article needs a copyedit, examples follow:
  • Italicize magazine title in "A two-volume sequel to the manga, Tokyo Mew Mew a la Mode, was also serialized in Nakayoshi."?
  • Sentence just ends oddly Heavily edited and dubbed, 23 episo.des of Mew Mew Power aired on the 4Kids TV channel in the United States and on YTV in Canada, with 3 more. 3 more what?
  • Why is Ultramarine Lorikeet capitalized, but the other animal names are not?
  • Why "the" in After saying their goodbyes, the Kish, Pie, and Tart return to their own world.?
  • To be consistent, shouldn't the power / animal of Berry Shirayuki be given in the sequel plot?
  • The first paragraph of Characters seems to repeat much of the material from the Plot on the five girls.
  • Production makes no mention of the sequel (but should)
  • In the Manga section, is the plot of the sequel needed (already given in Plot) - avoid needless repetition
  • Weird parenthesis in however ten of the 4Kids episodes have been released to Region 4 DVD in (Australia and New Zealand) by Magna Pacific
  • In Video Games the first game gets two sentences and the second gets much more coverage. I would try to add more on the first per WP:WEIGHT and introduce the second better (parallel construction suggests "The second. title, was released... "
  • Does this sentence really need FIVE refs? The individual character song discs were released as standalone CDs on September 4, 2002.[32][33][34][35][36]
• Per WP:QUOTE, to be set off as block quotes, text should be at least four lines long.
• Some refs need more information - for example ref 59 is missing the publisher. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing :) I used the MoS as the model for the article. Will see if someone can copyedit. LoCE seems dead, though, so may take awhile unfortunately :( Items 3-5 fixed. Will work on rewriting the characters. For production, I hadn't included the sequel because she doesn't discussion its production much, but will recheck. Fixed next two items. For the video games, unfortunately, that is all the sourceable information available on the first game. The second has so much information because the manga author discusses it in the author notes, but never mentioned the first one. For the last, yes...one ref for each of the five CDs. Quotes fixed. Ref 59 fixed, can't believe I missed that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are copyeditors listed at WP:PRV and I understand that although LOCE is nonfunctional, asking editors listed there for help on their talk pages often works. I am also fine if you want to strike or respond under my original points (or leave it like this), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. Meanwhile, my fellow editor G.A.S. has redone the character section. Do you think that is a better version? (I'll be adding references to it this evening). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Naruto characters

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, listing this article for peer review before going to WP:FLC for a run at featured list status. It's modeled after similar articles such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. Particularly, I would like to invite discussion on what to include in the "Other characters" section, which leads off to the List of minor Naruto characters article, and what to put there in terms of summary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Naruto characters/archive1.

List of Mr. Stain Characters

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… it has not been rated yet

Thanks,

Binarymoron (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Stain

I've listed this article for peer review because…

new info has been added to it and it has changed from its previous version

any suggestions for improving this article will be more than appreciated Thanks,

Binarymoron (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this article looks significantly better than the old version at first glance, it still feels very much like a stub to me. Here are some suggestions for possible expansion:

• The article seems to be almost entirely slanted towards the American version of it. You should give more information on the Japanese version other than just the little in the info-box (i.e. what company makes it, etc.).

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• An entire section could be made on production. What made Ryuji Masuda create the series? Why did he create it the way he did? How is it produced?

 Not done lack of proper information.Binarymoron (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Expand the music section. Tell more about the music, who composed it, how it is recorded (i.e. digital, orchestra, individual musicians, etc.).

 Not done lack of proper information.Binarymoron (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• What was the critical reception of the series? Has there been any noteworthy praise, criticism, etc. of the series? Did someone notable love it or hate it?

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Did the series air on TV or was it a web series originally? What channel did it air on in Japan? In America? What were the ratings like in both countries? Is it significant for any reason in any other country?

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• You quote a lot of the information from the special features of the DVDs. Can you incorporate this information into expanding other sections instead of putting it into the DVD section? Maybe just list all the special features in one list. In general, the DVD section should usually be very simple and straightforward.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your description of the show I'm really just picturing a cross between Wile E. Coyote and Teletubbies. You should really expand it in a plot section and tell exactly what goes on in each episode. Make the reader who's never seen the series picture exactly what the series is about.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I corrected some style issues myself but your references are cited wrong. See WP:REF for information on how to cite your sources within the article. Remember, in general, anything that I wouldn't know about the series just through common knowledge, since I haven't seen it, should be cited within the article.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also remember your consistency in number usage. In general, numbers under one hundred should be written out (e.g. one instead of 1). I corrected some of these I saw within the article.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. -- Redfarmer (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done requested CopyEdit.Unnecessary terms have been removed. Binarymoron (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The above reviews are for the older version of Mr. Stain, links are

Redfarmer's review for :this

And

Ruhrfisch's review for :this

The current version is the revised version of Mr. Stain.

It would be helpful if you could help me with the not done portions of the article (marked above). Thanks, Binarymoron (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Non automated comments from Ruhrfisch

• Reference tags should have a space after them. I fixed those int he two lead paragraphs, but the rest need this too.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dates need to be wikilinked, fixed the first two.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand this: "The CGI was produced by FUNimation Entertainment and broadcasted in Japan by Kids Station, beginning January 6, 2003, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at 12 p.m. (JST). The show also premiered between 10:50 p.m. and 23:30 p.m.(JST) on December 31, 2002.[4]" I would list the premier first, then the usual air times. Also 10:50 p.m. makes sense, but 23:30 pm does not - either "between 10:50 and 11:30 p.m." or "between 22:50 and 23:30". I think most casual readers would understand the p.m. version better.

 DoneBinarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to find a featured article or good article on an animated series and use it as a model for the article.

Y using Excel Saga Binarymoron (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The characters table refers to episode number, but the list of episodes does so by title and "Volume" number. The table of characters seems a bit much - could there just be a list of major characters and then the details on the minor ones could be in the episode summaries?

 Done still working on the character list Binarymoron (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of al ist of characters, how about a paragraph or two describing them? Start with Mr. Stain, then talk about the characters who appear in the most episodes (volumes) (the cats?). Then maybe move on to characters by type - robots together, or love interests, or birds?

 Done Binarymoron (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

In the lead paragraphs it says "There is no dialogue, just music and sound effects, similar to the old Looney Tunes cartoons." I did not know there were Looney Tunes without dialogue. My question is, if there is no dialogue, how do we know the characters' names?

 Done Binarymoron (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Characters section, can you give examples of how the names suggest their fates or roles? In the list it mentions the fish named "Eaten" - any others? Also why is Mr. Stain called that? What does Palvan mean and are there any differences between the Japanese and English names in meaning (if you translated the Japanese names into English, would they all be the same)? You might want to mention here that Mr. Stain is the only character who appears in all episodes, Palvan next, etc. Some characters roles are more obvious than others - Lost kitten needs no explanation, but who is Stephanie? Is Handsome Stain real? Would "abandoned" be a better description of the baby than "deserted"?

 Done the cast names only appear in english, I added this in the lead.

• "Also why is Mr. Stain called that? What does Palvan mean?"

have to be answered. Binarymoron (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Storyline - no references in any of the four paragraphs (plus none in the last pragraph of Characters). Pehaps a quote or two about the story from a reviewer could be used here?

 Done

Episodes - these are mostly fairl well written

Y

General - still needs a copyedit, cleanup. Probably by someone who has seen the show. Hope this helps answer your question, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolf's Rain

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has been significantly improved over the last month. Many parts have been completely rewritten and the article has been completely restructured to better follow the anime/manga MOS. Relevant information that was missing before, such as manga details and reception, has been added and the article has gone from having only 2 references to 27. I think it is ready to move from Start to B class, but would like outside opinions has I have done most of the work on its improvements. I'm also looking for feedback on remaining work that may be needed before it is ready for GA or FA status.

Thanks in advance, Collectonian (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad the script actually notes which weasely words it found, cause I can never figure out which ones are bad. :) One thing I didn't quite get, though, is it said the lead needs expansion even though the lead is 3 paragraphs long and, as far as I can, summarizes the article well. Collectonian (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Review

Ideas if you go for GA.

• Move up the Poland flagicon with France so their is only one line for Canal+ in the other network section of the infobox.
• Add this line behind Keiko Nobumoto in the author section of the manga infobox: <br/> Toshitsugu Iida (Art).
• Need a space on both sides of the hyphen in the Released section of the OVA in the infobox.
• Add Japan flagicon in front of Kodansha in the manga section of the infobox.
• Make sure the release dates for the manga are right. Anime News Network has the Japanese releases at 2003-07-23 to 2004-02-23. Link full dates.
• Change 26 to twenty-six in the lead and episodes sections.
• Change recap to recapitulation or summary.
• Change all OVA to original video animation.
• Change 30 to thirty in the lead and episodes sections.
• Change into Tankōbon to [[Tankōbon|bound volumes]]
• I counted six different red links. Consider making stub articles or removing the links.
• Plot section might be considered to be excessively detailed, consider trimming it down.
• As it stands the character section is a regurgitation of the plot. This section is for the characters (mostly the major characters) in which they are described in modest detail, including voice actor credits (if applicable, see {{anime voices}}). If possible add a group pic. If it is a fair-use image, remember to add fair-use rational.
• Change 15-18 to fifteen through eighteen in the reception section.
• Change 24 to twenty-four in the episodes section.
• The line:"The vocals were recorded around the world, including Japan, Poland, Brazil, the United States, and Italy to offer a diverse range of music and give the soundtrack an international flavor." seems to me as something that needed to be cited.
• Change 44 to forty-four in the soundtrack section.
• Some words used in the article are Words to avoid.
• Drop the {{Contains Japanese text}} tag lower in the page. I find it works well between the External links sub header and the first link because the right side of the page is usually empty here anyhow.

(Duane543 (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the feedback. The line about the vocals is cited (#19, shared with the sentence after it). On the Japanese text box, there has been some discussion that it should be at the top as it applies to the whole article and people should be told at the start, not after they get to the end and already probably figured it out themselves ;-) I think I've taken care of the rest except the plot (will work on), and the Tankōbon, which is commonly used for manga discussions, so wasn't sure why it should be changed? I also got rid of all but two red links. I have a translation request in for Shin Vision's italian wikipedia article, and I will create a stub for Ota since he seems to be notable (has won some awards for his work on other series) :) Can you point out some of the words to avoid you spotted? I'm horrible at spotting those. Collectonian (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid that I seen (I did not put them in context, so it is up to your own judgment):

• However: {Plot- paragraph 1, sentence 3}, {Manga adaptation differences- paragraph 1, sentence2}, {Manga adaptation differences- paragraph 2, sentence 2}
• Supposed: {Plot- paragraph 1, sentence 3}
• Report: {Reception- paragraph 5, sentence 1} Also missing a period on this sentence.
• Note(s) (Note is a word to avoid, so I'm not sure about notes): {Manga- paragraph 2, sentence 2}, {Reception- paragraph 1, sentence 3}, {Reception- paragraph 4, sentence 3}

• Tankōbon is considered to be a subject-specific term (A.K.A jargon).
• As for the citation issue, they are two sentences. They both could be citied, but I believe the # 19 citation would be better suited on the line I questioned about above.
• I'm almost sure that if you are using partial quotes, you should use ellipsis to show it. This is the sentence I'm talking about : One reviewer notes that the soundtrack "shows [Kanno's] skills as both composer and pianist," and is "a treat to hear."

(Duane543 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Ahhh...However is a word I use quite a bit too :-P I think I've taken care of everything. I went for volume for Tankōbon, though, as it is what is generally used in the english market over bound collection :-) Thanks again! Collectonian (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace Out People, Wolves rock!!!!!! :)

Manga

With the significant work to reference this article within the past couple of months, it is an easy Good Article candidate. It just barely missed being a Good Article because of one few unreferenced section, which has now been fixed. However, I want to go one step further and see just how close this article is to being a Featured Article and what needs to be improved to reach that status. My main concern is that it may be over referenced.

Thanks,

Farix (Talk) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply You may be right, but without more details about what references might be excess, unnecessary, or redundant, there weren't any guidelines for removing citations. So they were all kept pending such input. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• A stub or something for Kyoto International Manga Museum would be nice.

Reply It already exists. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no pre-WWII pictures? In fact, this goes for the entire article. The subject is intensely subjective and visual - it's about art! - and so too many pictures is not enough. A picture of a manga cafe would be good too, or perhaps a picture on a train where everyone is reading manga. It's one thing to say it's a major part of modern life, and another to actually show it.

Reply Not enough room to put in all the pictures we need. There have been discussions about this for months, but no simple solution has emerged. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems to have an odd focus. In the post-WWII section, we have 2 sections on Shojo (which is all well and good since Shojo is a very important category of manga) and then we jump straight to '3 Manga publications'. ...what? There are other important genres to be covered, from shonen to American-style murder mysteries and suspense to the early sci-fi and mecha stuff, too.

Reply This has been fixed by inserting completely new, heavily referenced sections on manga for male readers and on gekiga manga. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply Added later. The new sections are major additions to the article, not merely a sentence or two. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, I'd like to see more pictures/screenshots, particularly if they are spaced out in time such that you can see the evolution from the most primitive '40s era manga art-style to the slickest modern one, or if they illustrate the various 'styles' of manga (like 4-koma or full page spreads like Blade of the Immortal uses, etc.);

Reply Not enough room for the pictures. I wish there were room. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

a section on the intertwined relationship of anime and manga; and a finer-grained breakdown of sections - they are pretty monolithic.

Reply Again, not enough room to go into anime-manga connections.

--Gwern (contribs) 02:11 22 December 2007 (GMT)

• Under the dōjinshi section, I find the part about omakes to be out of place especially because it's mentioned before defining dōjinshi. Omakes is not only a part of dōjinshi. Maybe move the omake part under publications? Toothpyx (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply I agree that the dojinshi section -- the whole publication section, in fact -- needs a lot of work. But it's not my area of expertise, and I can't do it. Someone else will have to fill in here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• A few things about the article, in no particular order.

First, there's some excess detail. In statements like "Another example is CLAMP's Magic Knight Rayearth, whose three young heroines, Hikaru, Umi, and Fuu, are magically transported to the world of Cephiro to become armed magical warriors in the service of saving Cephiro from internal and external enemies." the names of the planet and the heroines should be removed to focus the reader's attention on what matters. Perhaps the example should be removed entirely. I suggest searching for other places where the article gives too much detail.

Reply It seemed unwise to remove Magic Knight Rayearth, since it is one of the most popular manga in both Japan and the US. Removing the heroines' names deletes only a few words. But without more details about other examples you consider excess, unnecessary, or redundant, there wasn't much else I could do about this issue. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Second, there's a fruit salad of orthographic styles. The same name is written variously, for example with or without macrons, or with long vowels written as ou. Japanese words suffer the same fate (shojo and shōjo, for example). Is "Aikawa Minwa" correct? There's a spelling error in the transliteration of Versailles.

Reply Yes, Aikawa Minwa is correct. Versailles has been fixed. Sometimes the macrons are missing in the original titles and references, and we can't add them without getting those titles and references wrong. Perhaps you yourself could correct other mistakes when you find them? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should be proofread with the goal of bringing it into accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The abbreviation "lit." is unnecessary even if the explanations are kept (see "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style). There are a few slashes. See "Avoid joining two words by a slash" in the Manual of Style. There are variations on styles (quotes, italics, no styling) the article uses for titles, foreign words, and words as words. There are several mixed citation styles (with inline citation and a footnote number), for example, "(Schodt 1986, p. 88)⁶ " . Are these dual-format citations required, or should they be simplified? "Bande Dessinée" has capital letters in one place where it should have lowercase. There are various abbreviations of "United States" (I noticed "U.S.A." and "US.") Spaces around a dash in the sentence "All of these innovations – strong and independent female characters, intense emotionality, and complex design – remain characteristic of shōjo manga up to the present day." result in a line beginning with a dash (when I view it on my screen). The Manual of Style specifies no spaces around dashes.

Reply Fixed these.

I don't think it's fruitful to explain "image-centered" as "pictocentric" and "word-centered" as "logocentric" in this article. Can we remove the explanations, which don't appear elsewhere in the article, and don't clarify (at least to me) the simpler terms?

Reply Those two words aren't explanations, they're the words used by the author being quoted. I think this is a matter of taste, actually, and I left them. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some sentences need editing. "In 1969, a group of women mangaka later called "The Magnificent 24s" made their shōjo manga debut (the term comes from the Japanese name for 1949, when many of these artists were born)." (Which term?) Reply: fixed this. "Although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films.[17][18] (e.g. Star Wars)." I'm not sure of the point of the sentence "Although U.S. Occupation censorship policies specifically targeted art and writing that glorified war and Japanese militarism,[6] those policies did not prevent the publication of other kinds of material, including manga." Is it saying that policies permitted manga, or that policies permitted glorification of war and Japanese militarism in manga (but not in other forms of expression)?

Reply I changed "targeted" into "prohibited." Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

English could substitute for a lot of foreign terms. Do extended glosses like "redisu / josei 女性 じょせい" really add to the word "ladies'" or should they be removed? Do we need a repeat ("This "Ladies Comic" subgenre (in Japanese, redisu レディース, redikomi レヂィーコミ, and josei) has dealt with themes of young adulthood")? Reply: fixed this. How many times is the German word bildungsroman necessary, and can the English term "coming-of-age," which it explains, substitute for it? In the English Wikipedia, most of these foreign-language terms should be removed, especially in articles to which Manga links, when the terms are explained in the article.

Reply: Bildungsroman is the correct technical term, and the one used by Wikipedia itself for the article. It is defined in an endnote. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are all the people called "scholars" scholars? One is Takashi Murakami. He well might be; I don't know. Having skimmed the article on him, I don't get the impression of a scholar, but perhaps I missed something, or the article on him omitted his scholarship. (It covers artistic and entrepreneurial activities and mentions that he left a doctoral program.) The same word also describes Frederik L. Schodt. However, the article on him says that he is a writer, translator and interpreter famous for translating manga. Again, he might be a scholar, but writer, translator and interpreter don't add up to scholar. A scholar could write a book with a title like "Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics" but writing a book with that title doesn't automatically make him a scholar. Critical examination of the roles of these authors can help bring this article to the next level.

Reply I changed the word "scholar" to "author" and "writer" since it serves no purpose to debate Schodt's scholarship. Yes, he is a scholar, and one of the best in this field, but that's not the point here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate from the word used for Murakami and Schodt, the quality of the references should be examined. For Good and Featured articles, Wikipedia wants sources that are progressively more reliable. When sources are marginal, ask whether the statements they support are important to the exposition. If they are, find better sources; if they're not, remove or reword the statements to avoid the need for those marginal sources. Aim for works that provide scholarship, rather than armchair sociology.

Reply The citations used are all of high reliability. Without a list of references you believe to be "armchair sociology," there isn't anything I can do about this issue. At another time, we can discuss my own credentials for making the choices I did, but not here. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, notes about the Constitution of Japan related to censorship reference Kodansha; it seems more useful to reference the Constitution itself (see the article on it for a link to Wikisource in English).

Reply This puzzled me at first, since the Kodansha encyclopedia citation we used takes one precisely to the Japanese Constitution itself, but then I realized that you probably don't know the encyclopedia. I added some page references and clarified the issue, I hope. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Publications" section, prior to "Magazines," has no citations. Many of the statements could reasonably be challenged. The section is close to the border of what Wikipedia calls "original research."

Reply I agree. I did no work on this section, except for the Gegika section (which was completely rewritten and referenced). Several times on the discussion page, I've recommended that it be removed (except Gekiga) or moved to another article, but there has been no consensus on the issue. Future editors will have to take up this problem, since I will be making no further major additions or changes to the manga article. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Links need checking. The phrase "Mixx Entertainment/TokyoPop" contains two separate links to redirects that both lead to Tokyopop. Although it's not necessary to fix every indirect link in Wikipedia, I'd hope that editors aiming to bring an article to Good or Featured standing would make them all direct.

Reply. Fixed these.Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these are minor points. A thorough proofreading is time-consuming and tedious, but it can address many of the issues I've raised. This article is interesting, informative, and accessible. I'd like to see you pick the nits and get it the recognition it deserves. Fg2 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, everyone. They have been very helpful, and I regret that I wasn't able to use all of them. Future editors will doubtless find them very useful.

I will now no longer be making any further major additions or changes to this article. Back in September 2007, when Peregrine Fisher and I started to work on it, we had a list of topics and headings we wanted to upgrade. That list is now complete, and I believe we were successful in significantly improving the article by adding quality writing and references (we added over 200 solid, reliable references). But that job is done now, so it is now up to other people to continue to work on this entry.

The only advice I'd pass on is that dealing with the bibliography may be tricky if you start deleting references wholesale or without asking if they are mentioned in other references (e.g., in what is known as an "op. cit." = opus citandum reference).

As some of you have guessed, I am what Wikipedians sometimes call an "expert." It is not alway a term of praise on Wikipedia, where -- I'm saddened by this, actually -- experts are treated sometimes scornfully, sometimes with hostility, and sometimes with outright dislike. Some editors are exceptionally welcoming, but not all by any means. So this has been a mixed experience for me, sometimes good, but often not pleasant at all. I frankly doubt if I will do any more detailed editing on Wikipedia again. Too much hostile, pointless bickering, too much petty backbiting, and too many naive wannabes trying to call the shots about things they don't know. But I will say it has been interesting.

Good luck with this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reply We've addressed many of these issues and concerns, but where do I describe them? Here? I'd like to comment immediately after the place each problem is mentioned. Please advise! Timothy Perper (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Blood+

I've listed this article for peer review because significant work has been done in the article over the last view weeks and I think it has been significantly improved (see [1] for what it was like before). I'd like to get feedback on other potential improvements to be made and to see if it is ready to go from Start to B class as part of the over all goal of GA or Featured status later.

Thanks,

Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Review

Ideas if you go for GA.

• Include the manga, light novels, and video games in the infobox.
• Genres should be alphabetized
• If possible, find an image of just the logo to put in the infobox.
• Make sure the lead section conform with guidelines at WP:Lead.
• Article needs a reception section.
• A slimmed down version of the major characters should be added to the character section of the main article.
• Add a subsection in the character section named "Character types".
• Found 9 red links. Consider making stubs for them or removing the link.
• Some words used in the article are in the guideline Words to avoid.

(Duane543 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks! Will work on those items. Collectonian (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mewtwo

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm going to attempt to make this a feutured article, and having a group of others telling me the problems help! I'm not kidding, no matter how much I seem so. Anyone, yeah, just tell me what needs fixing with the article and what I can do to make it better.

Thanks,

- ~VNinja~ 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you read this at the main WP:PR page, scroll up a tad and see the comments I make about the Name of Turkey article. Large chunks of this article are unreferenced. That's the first and best thing you can work on to improve it. --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Belldandy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've gone about as far as I can, and would greatly appreciate other opinions to help bring it up to GA status. I'm not quite sure where best to focus further efforts.

Thanks, Bilby (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

The plot sections need to be tightened up some. IMDB should not be used as a source. A lot of it appears to be unsourced, and sourcing is one of the prime requirements for GA or FA, so I would start there. Unlike with a series article, claims made about the character from the series must also be sourced to specific episodes, manga volumes, novels, etc. Himura Kenshin is a recent character GA that would be good to study to see how to tighten up and source. Collectonian (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Malkinann

Per Wikipedia:CITE#FULL, direct quotes (such as the ones from Susan J. Napier, who is different from Susan Napier the romance novellist) need to be to page number if at all possible. There also isn't much information about character merchandise, but that's perhaps a bit more incidental to the character than the scholarly and popular reception.-Malkinann (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happier if the general policy was to use Harvard in-line references, as that makes page numbers easier. :) I don't have the Napier book, but I'll pick it up next week to fix that. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have the book on hand at the moment (checked out from the university library), so I can look up the page numbers for you if you'd like. Collectonian (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtua Fighter (anime)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. Needs an assessment since it was recently created.

Thanks, Ominae (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I would assess it as a start class article, seems to be a bit above a stub though it needs a lot of work. Some points for improvement:

• Expand the lead paragraphs per WP:LEAD to summarize the rest of the article.
• There are no (zero) references for the main sections of the article (Plot, Characters, and Episodes - this last section is blank). Please see WP:V and WP:RS.
• The whole plot and character sections are written from an in-universe perspective, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) about maintaining perspective.
• Given the last point, I will say I have almost no idea what the plot is about and most of the character descriptions are equally confusing (if they even exist - a few are blank). What is Dural, for example? A robot or cyborg?
• References need to give publisher, title, author (if known - i.e. reviews), and date accessed.
• Needs a copyedit for grammar and proof reading for typos.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Himura Kenshin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA article. Would like feedback and thoughts on ways it can be improved and any tweaks needed to get it ready for FA candidacy.

Thanks, Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the article is generally well-done and reasonably broad in scope. Second, while reading this piece I did encounter a few items which may be of help to you and your collaborators:

• OVA - I didn't know what this meant-I recommend writing the abbreviation out the first time for newbie readers such as myself.
• I would work on the prose, especially with an eye towards more exact wording. For example, see this excerpt from the "Background" section: "... killed all with the exception of Shinta, who is saved by Seijūrō. Seijūrō decides to adopt Shinta into his apprenticeship, and renames the boy "Kenshin" (with 'Ken' meaning 'sword' and 'Shin' meaning 'heart'), believing that 'Shinta' is not a fitting name for a swordsman.[22]"

Perhaps this would be clearer if it were recast like this: "...killed all except for Shinta, who is saved by Seijuro and renamed "Kenshin" as the name 'Ken' (sword) and 'Shin' (heart) where more fitting for a swordsman.

I changed this particular line, however the article would benefit from copyediting from a stylistic viewpoint.

• On the same topic, sentences such as this one can be recast to eliminate redundancy: Various anime and manga publications have provided acclaim and criticism of Kenshin's character. Perhaps would read better like this: Kenshin's character has been met with mixed reviews within the anime and manga community.....specifically, I am referring to the word "various" which is unnecessary.
  • Within that vein: "Kenshin's desire is to protect people from danger without killing" can be cut slightly to: "Kenshin desires to protect people from danger without killing."
• In the "Techniques" section, this phrase appears: "...and the ability to read through the movements of his opponents." What does "read through the movements of his opponents" mean? Further, in this instance, it may be clearer to use the genitive case: "opponent's movements" rather than "movements of his opponents."
• Although it is good for the Lead section to provide a concise, scintillating version of the whole article, shy away from actually using the exact same text as in the "Plot Overview" section.
• I find it useful to refer to Featured Content with a similar subject. There are several FAs in Himura Kenshin's Wikiproject, for example: Madlax. These can be a useful resource.
• To conclude, the largest area for improvement that I see regards style and prose. Typically, I recommend League of Copy Editors, as they generally do a terrific job of polishing prose!

I hope this helped. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page with any questions. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll get to work on those and see if can get it copy edited :) Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at reworking the lead. Is that looking better? Collectonian (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from user:erachima

While the article as a whole is well organized, I see a couple paragraphs that could read more clearly than they currently do.

In the Creation and Conception section, the third paragraph needs work. (Was it based on an imperfectly translated source?) It has instances of bad grammar throughout ("as well as a simply structure", "changes he made was"), and though I'm currently fixing it as well as I can, it will at least needs looked over by the original editor to see if my rewording is accurate.

In the Background section, there are several ambiguous statements, a couple of which I found rather amusing. ("Both Kenshin and Tomoe get married"? Such a pity, I thought they would have made a good couple together.) Seijūrō also gets dropped out of the sky with no introduction or wikilink. Actually, that seems to be true of a lot of the characters. First mentions of characters, like first mentions of jargon, need to be given context for the reader unfamiliar with the series.

Speaking of things being dropped from the sky, the last sentence of the technique section segues with the grace of a brick to the back of the skull. (Right now it essentially reads "Kenshin learns an all powerful sword technique. Then dies.") I can tell a lot of effort was put into compressing that section to only describe his most important attributes, but I think an extra sentence or two of transition would serve us well there.

That's all I have the time to look for right now, but I may come back later. Fortunately, despite the writing needing a significant amount of improvement, the real effort, gathering information for the article, has already been done excellently. Good work, and good luck. --erachima talk 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from user:tintor2

I tried doing the statements that erachima commented. My only doubt is the balance of the in-universe information and the out-of-universe information.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shugo Chara!

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get an idea of where the article stands. A lot of work has been put into this article to improve it an turn it from a fan-ish plot article into an encyclopedic article on a popular manga and anime franchise.

Things I would like to know are:

• Is the format and organization of the content logical and unambitious?
• Are there any obvious gaps that has not already been mentioned on the article's talk page?
• Are there any issues with the prose that needs to be corrected?
• Do the references properly support the information in the article?
• Are there any statements that could be challenged that do not have have a reference?
• Do the references comply with Wikipedia' policies and guidelines?
• Is there sufficient supporting material on the article? And if not, what additional supporting material could be added?
• What else needs to be done to this article before it should be nominated as a Good Article Candidate?

Thanks, Farix (Talk) 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article requires a "production" section—per the article's talk page.
• "The first chapter was published in the February edition of Nakayoshi magazine[5] which when on sell on January 3, 2006."—please correct. Y
• "In 2007, Shugo Chara! was adapted into an anime television series of the same title."—sentence structure needs to be revised. Y
• "anime television series"→"anime series." It seems redundant to specify TV as well. N
• "Expected to consist of fifty-one episodes, the first episode, "Shugo Chara Born!" (しゅごキャラ誕生! Shugo Kyara Tanjō!?), aired on October 6, 2007 and the series continues to air today. "—sentence structure needs to be revised. Y
• "; episode twenty-seven on,"→"and from episode twenty-seven," (etc.) Y
• "The story is about an elementary school girl named Amu Hinamori whose "cool and spicy" exterior belies her introverted personality."—please clarify this sentence. Y
• "But when Amu wishes for the courage to be reborn as her "would-be self," she is surprised to find three colorful eggs the next morning, which hatch into three Guardian Characters"—Never start a sentence with "but"—remove it. Y
• "It won the 2008 Kodansha Manga Award for best children's manga."—is it possible to add more information, when, at which event?
• "ongoing"—add "as at..." N
• "With the Guardian Characters, Amu's life becomes much more complex as she now struggles to deal with her "would-be" selves and the Guardians—a special student council of Seiyo Elementary—who recruit Amu to search for, and seal, the X Eggs and X Characters, which are the corrupted forms of peoples' dreams."—restructure sentence. This sentence is too long. I cannot figure out what is meant by the part past "Guardians–". (Guardian Characters / Guardians?)
• Add citations to all quotes. (e.g. "cool and spicy.").
• Use logical citations—e.g. "cool and spicy."→"cool and spicy". Y
• The spaced en dash ( – ) is preferred to the em dash(—) (WP:DASH). N
• The character sections seems redundant to the plot section. Consider combining them (I am aware of the manual of style, but refer to Tokyo Mew Mew for an example). As WP:NOVELS points out, the "Characters" section can make an article feel like SparkNotes.
• The article requires a longer reception, plot, media, lead section.
• The article requires a copy-edit:
  • There are a lot of short paragraphs.
• I will add more items later. G.A.S 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Production section: I'm not sure that a production section can be written because the information isn't available. So far, I've been only able to find two concept drawings in the manga, but that isn't much to base an entire section on. I've made a request to the Japanese language Wikipedia for assistance in locating sources over a week ago, but there has been no response.

• Anime television series: It is important to clarify that a television series is being discussed as opposed to an anime OVA series. If you leave it as just "anime series", the reader may not know if you are referring to a television series or an OVA series.

• Guardian Characters / Guardians: Because Del Ray Manga has decided to translate Shugo Chara (しゅごキャラ) to "Guardian Characters", there is no way to further distinguish them from the other group, the Guardians.

• en dashes/em dashes: The use of em dashes are grammatically correct since they indicates an interruption, and replacing them with en dashes would be incorrect. WP:DASHconfirms this.

I'll look at the other grammar and spelling issues and see how to best fix them. --Farix (Talk) 11:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Update added:

• • Anime television series: No problem.
  • Production section: I have doubts as to how the article will attain good article status if it is incomplete (criteria 3b), but maybe that will not be seen as an issue.
  • Quotes: If you use wording from the source text, it should always be cited.
  • Dashes: WP:DASH – "Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above." This is optional in any case.
  • Characters section: Much of the information in here is repeated in the plot section. It might be better to combine these sections. Per WP Novels's style guidelines—"Instead, use a finely crafted plot summary to introduce the characters to the reader."
  • Dates: Refer to Wikipedia:MOS#Precise language.
  • Guardians: Use different sentences to explain this and consider adding the Japanese text to disambiguate.

G.A.S 15:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comments:

• Expand upon the significance of the 3 guardians in the lead.
• Production: I will add some suggestions for this section on the article talk page, as they are outside of the scope of this peer review.

G.A.S 07:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've finished rewriting the episode summaries to the point I can, I can focus on the main article. I still don't see how the plot and character sections are repetitive. Both contain different types of information from different preservatives. Both could be expanded with more detail since details are very limited in both. I also don't have a clue what you are talking about with the dates. I've looked though the text and don't see anything that isn't as precise as sources allow. --Farix (Talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The dates are not that big an issue; the only issue is to update the infobox the moment that the series is not "ongoing".

Re the characters and plot: I trust your judgement in this case.

Good luck with the article! G.A.S 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Shojo Beat

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get an idea of where the article stands. I have it tagged for copyediting, but are there any other major issues? Anything else that may need to be added/expanded on? How is the format/organization? There really isn't a good MoS for magazines, so sort of went with what seemed appropriate/natural and by looking at some GA/FA magazine articles and adapting to this particular type of publication. Goal after PR is a GA nom.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to beef up the "History" section with details, as it's a bit sparse. As usual, any tidbit of how the magazine was received helps. When I was thinking about the items an article like this would have, my immediate train of thought was: "History/development/production", "Features", "Reception/awards/cultural impact", which the article has it stands, but feel free to expand as you see fit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, on second thought, it's not that sparse, but more stuff wouldn't hurt. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yah, I am finding the reception info is some of the hardest stuff to find for magazines. They aren't reviewed very much, so mostly just circulation numbers. I think all the verifiable history is there, but will double check :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question for reviewers: are sources on each start and end of series needed in the table, or is it considered to be implicitly sourced to the magazine issues listed without the need for an inline citation? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

List of D.Gray-man chapters

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it fails the criteria for B2, coverage and accuracy, and it's been stumping me. It's the only thing keeping it from B-class, I think and I would like it to get there.

Thanks, Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: The list passed to B-class, but it would be good to get advices to improve more the article.Tintor2 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• Article needs cleaned up for language / grammar. Just in the lead there is The series follows the adventures of Allen Walker, an Exorcists who uses the power of a divine weapon called "Innocence”, and his comrades in the Black Order as they fight against the Akuma, demons created from human souls, of [by] an ancient sorcerer known as the Earl of Millennium[, who] and his plan[s] to destroy all of humanity. You can ask for a copyedit at WP:PRV
• I assume the chapters are individual issues of the book? Could this be made clearer? Also unclear if there are multiple Innocences are just many pieces of one Innocence.
• Watch needless repetition - just in the first volume "headquarters of the Black Order" is repeated twice. Could it be something like Allen Walker travels to Great Britain to the headquarters of the Black Order, an organization of Exorcists created by the Vatican. There he is introduced to the other Exorcists by Komui Lee and destroys multiple Akuma, which are created by the Earl of Millennium from the souls of the deceased when their loved ones curse God for their loss.
• "Chapters not yet in tankōbon format" - this section needs some explanatory text

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 08:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Noah Family

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently rewritten the entire article to a point where I believe it follows the MoS. I believe I also need someone's second opinion. However, I still don't know if the tone is appropriate. Other things I would like to know:

• Is the lead sufficient?
• Is there any needless detail or is anything too general?
• Are they any terms exclusive to the series that are not fully explained?
• Are the paragraphs and sentences structured properly?
• Any statement that can be challenged?
• Does any statement go against NPOV?
• Is the basic grammar okay?
• Is it easily accessible?

Thanks, Itzjustdrama ^(drama?) 06:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• I agree with the cleanup tags - this needs to be rewritten from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U Everything in here appears to be gleaned from reading the series - there is nothing in terms of critical reception (what have critics written about these characters) or even comments from the creator(s) of the series about them.
• Almost all of the references are from the work of fiction itself - what makes this Family notable? WHere are the independent third-party sources wrting about this topic? See WP:NN
• A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - Jabba the Hutt and Palpatine are FAs on fictional characters
• No images - hopw about a fair use image or perhaps a free one of the author / illustrator could be found?
• Article needs more references, for example many paragraphs are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam 00

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review due to the edit war that happened some time ago between Collectonian and Jtrainor. Collectonian tagged this article with the justification that it suffers from several problems, so I've decided to list this article for peer review in order to seek help and advice on how to improve this article.

Thanks, Frozen Slime (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether that is the correct justification for requesting a peer review, but here goes (Note that this review is not complete, and that further input will be required. I did not review the actual content in detail.):

• ...first to be set in a non-fictional era (Anno Domini).\The series is set in a futuristic Earth ...—These facts seem to contradict one another.
• The original air dates (first season) should be provided in the lead.
• Ensure that the article follows the manual of style (Wikipedia:MOS-ANIME#Layout for a series article).
• Update the Non-free / fair use media rationale (See Image:Mew_Mew_PS_Game.jpg for an example).
• The article requires a copy edit.
  • apparently selling — WP:OR?
  • 2nd, 7th ... spell out numbers lower than ten.
  • The primary protagonist of the show. — Fragmented.
  • He owns an orange Haro to aid Gundam Dynames' defense and movement when sniping. — Fragmented. (There are more examples.)
  • is told told in the format — word duplicated
  • Instead, it reveals and discuss the — discusses.
  • There are too many one or two line paragraphs.
• References should be cleaned up (e.g. 42, 43, 44: Only the title have been provided.)
• The article (esp. the plot section) needs serious cleanup.
• There are way too many consecutive links in certain areas, for instance four consecutive links in First Season.
• The article should be rated as C class, in my opinion.
• It seems to me that the article contains quite a bit of possibly irrelevant material:
  • 世界経済連合, sekaikeizairengō?, abbrev. ユニオン Union, lit. World Economic Union
  • I do not think it is necessary to list the countries in these factions.
  • I cannot make proper sense out of the plot section, as it concentrates to much on details, and very little on the overall plot.
  • The article does not seem comprehensive. I am left wanting further information.

G.A.S 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Gantz chapters

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been put forth to bring this list up to FL status. When the efforts began, it was at a low C at best. Please make any suggestions you see fit that will help us better the list if it is not deemed up to FL status.

Thanks! –m.f ^{(t • c)} 13:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I've never reviewed a similar list before and that I'm using List of Claymore episodes as a kind of guideline on how these lists have been done at the FA level. Your list seems to be generally clear and complete. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

• I couldn't help but see the big "needs copyediting" tag at the top of the page. This tag is correct, although the errors should not be hard to fix. In the lead, for example, a sentence begins "The manga chapters have been published in the Japanese-language magazine Weekly Young Jump since 2000 and is still ongoing... " The word "chapters" is plural, but the verb "is" is singular. You could fix this by replacing "is" with "are", or you might prefer to say "and the series is still ongoing". I see other grammatical errors or typos such as the echo "a" in the phrase "tall alien attacks Kato making him fall from a a bridge" or misspellings such as "inivisible" that a copyeditor would most likely catch and fix.

• The prose could be tightened and made more clear. "Kurono is attracted to Kishimoto and asks if they can have a sexual relationship, but she rejects him. Kato becomes angry while remembering how the little green alien died and attacks a bully from his school. During the following days several people die and appear in the building in Tokyo along with the previous survivors. Kato tries to explain to them what is happening. A gangster tries to use a gun on Nishi but he is able to survive and kills him." A tighter re-write might say, "Kurono asks Kisimoto if they can have sex, but she says 'no'. Angered, Kato, remembering how the little green alien died, attacks a bully from his school. Later, several people die and join the group, and Kato tries to explain to them what is happening. A gangster tries to shoot Nishi, but Nishi kills him." The original version uses 82 words; my version uses 55. I think this kind of tightening of the plot summaries is possible throughout.

• In addition to eliminating redundant words, you might consider making the plot summaries no longer than four or five sentences. This would involve deciding which details could be left out without damaging the summaries.

• I think the first paragraph of the lead might include a sentence that explains a little more about the rules of the "game". The characters have to die to join the game, but they can come back to life and die again. Magic?

• What is tankōbon format?

• In the first summary, you use the characters' first names, Kei and Masaru, on second reference rather than their last names, Kurono and Kato. The Manual of Style recommends last names on second reference. In other summaries, you use last names. I'd recommend changing the exceptions in the first summary and looking through the other summaries to make sure there are no more exceptions.

I hope you find these brief comments to be helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Reborn! chapters

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because to see if it needs some copy-edit or some parts need to be easier to understand.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If chapters are referred to as "Targets", why is this not reflected in the chapter list? I did this with Tramps Like Us, where chapters are "Rules". Could "one hundred and ninety-five" be 195 per WP:MOSNUM? -Malkinann (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Another thing you might want to look at is your use of commas - one sentence, one idea! -Malkinann (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

• "This article shows the chapters of the manga series" - FLC no longer likes lists to have things like that. Would recommend just saying something like "The manga series Reborn!, written and illustrated by Akira Amano, is comprised of X chapters—called "Targets"."
• The first two sentences of the second paragraph should be in the first paragraph before the plot summary. The sentence on the anime can go after the licensing.
• The sources need clean up as they have excessive stuff in the title. For example:

{{cite web|url=http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-873680-X&mode=1|title=家庭教師ヒットマンREBORN！／1｜天野　明｜ジャンプコミックス｜BOOKNAVI｜集英社|publisher=[[Shueisha]]|accessdate=2007-11-22|language=Japanese}}

should be

{{cite web |url=http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-873680-X&mode=1|title=家庭教師ヒットマンREBORN！／1 |publisher=[[Shueisha]] |accessdate=2007-11-22 |language=Japanese}}

• The Amazon refs need clean up - should not have the referer part or other excess
• I'm not sure about using flagicons for the titles, but can't think of a better way to handle it.
• The ELs section is probably unnecessary; the first two repeat the references and the ANN doesn't add extra content beyond that (if kept, the English tags are unnecessary)
• Other than that, a general copy edit and should be good to go for FLC.

Hope that helps. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems the user Darkangel made some things you said.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You might want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Right now the flags are without the country name. I would actually just name the country and remove the flags from the article per the same guideline. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get feedback on whether it is ready for an FLC or not.

Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the information about the naming of the chapters up, as it looked a bit clunky by itself. Aside from that, I think the line breaks require more pink, to match the Tokyo Mew Mew template. -Malkinann (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even notice the color. Adjusted to match the pink which is also used in the ep list. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Move the anime notice into the second paragraph. My biggest quibble is that the summaries are huge. From a quick skim of the summaries, I can tell that they probably can be reduced. I've never read or watched this series, so I don't know how plot-intensive it is, but even for a plot-intensive series, these summaries are a tad big. Condense events, eliminate extraneous details, and remember that the reader doesn't need every last detail of the series. And even past this, a general copy-edit would be good. Also, are the chapter names given in English for the original Japanese release? If not, then the kanji and romanji are necessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anime notice moved. As noted in the lead, the chapters are unnamed in the original Japanese, Tokyopop created names for the story itself then names for the extras. Not sure how to reflect that in the table. Maybe put something like Chapter x-y: English name? The plots have all been cut down a couple of times so far, with the last run taking them from above 500 to below 400. I can try reducing again, but yeah the series does pack quite a few events in each volume. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through and shortened all of the summaries again. Most are now near or below 300, with the longest ones now at 327 and 330, being the A La Mode summaries (mostly from all the names being tossed around). Is this better? (I also got in the chapter numbers) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Note: In the first releases of the manga, Tokyopop misspells this as chimera anima, but they corrected it to chimera anima in later volumes." - is it just me, or is the wrong spelling the same as the right spelling? -Malkinann (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Woops, what happens when you get too happy with the search replace :P Fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the proper plural of chimera anima? --Malkinann (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chimera animas :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird. Is Mew Mew Project a proper noun? --Malkinann (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, fixed that one. Mew Project, referring to the project to make the Mew Mews is official, but the second use on the list meant a new "mew mew project" as in making a new Mew Mew. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Panic!

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I need this article to get a peer review to get it ready for FAC. It recently passed a GAR, and is much better than what it was even a month ago, but a lot of work still has to be done for this one to get a chance at it's second FAC. I am aware that one of the major issues at this point is a thorough general copyedit, too. Thanks, 十八 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These are some things I noted, I recommend you to use Tokyo Mew Mew as an example:

• Per Wikipedia:Lead section, try not to add references to the lead, since it is all referenced in the article. Make a short mention of the reception in the lead givng a general overview from reviewers.
• The plot should give a description of the series until the end; it does not need references unless it confirms a something that was not explained in the series. If not create a theme section with the aspects of the series.
• The characters seem a bit overdetailed to be the main article, I would suggest to see if you can merge the character section in the plot and add a see also template with the List of Strawberry Panic! characters article.
• The last sentence of Internet radio show needs reference.

Are both of the PS2 covers needed? -Malkinann (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I suppose not; the original (limited edition) cover'd be kept in that case. And I don't see how the characters can be overdetailed when at most there's 2 sentences to a character, leading to about 6-7 lines per school, or 20 lines in all just for the characters; is that really too much?--十八 10:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Accessibility yet? That's something that's looked on well at FA level. -Malkinann (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Sailor Moon episodes

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Featured List status.

Thanks, TheLeftorium 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• What is there looks pretty good to me, although I do not normally work on anime articles.
• In the lead, since the fifth season was never released in North America, should this sentence It was released and dubbed in North America by DiC Entertainment and Cloverway.[1][3] be changed to something like The first four seasons have been released and dubbed in North America by DiC Entertainment and Cloverway.[1][3]?

 Done

• Language clean up In 2001, ADV Films released the English dubs of the first two seasons in a [on ?] 20 VHS volumes.[6] The two first seasons were taken to [released on 14 Region 1 DVDs] in 2002 by ADV, released over fourteen Region 1 DVDs.[7]

 Done

• I would refer to the 3rd and 4th seasons by their names in the lead - the lead is a summary of the article and these are important enough to name in the lead

 Done

• Biggest problem I see is that the episode lists have no inline citations - I assume they could have one or two refs in the header of each list (all come from one or two sources)

 Done

• I would explain why the dubbed episodes do not match up with the original episodes in the intro to the first and second seasons, not wait until the third season intro.

 Done Can you read it through to see if it's OK?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, I believe I have addressed all the points above. I left a question further up. --TheLeftorium 11:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the season intro paragraphs and they are helpful - now it does seem a bit odd that the last two seasons do not have any introcutory text. Could you add a sentence or two before those too? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl characters

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Recently, WikiProject Anime and manga created a topic workshop to help the promotion of potential Good and Featured Topics in the article's scope. I nominated a topic for Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl (proposal seen here), and two of the articles (both lists) are not up to FL status, but both have the potential. I request a peer review of this article to get ready for WP:FLC, and it also needs a general copyedit. Thanks. --十八 07:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list on a series I have never read or heard of. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• I think under WP:NFCC there needs to be a more detailed caption on the first image, explaining who each of the characters is
• Article needs more references, for example all of the name meaning explanations are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Refs are almost all from the books themselves - are more third-party, independent sources available? Would it make sense to have more critical comments about the characters in their sections, or if the creators have talked or written about them, include that.
• Make sure the article is written from an out-of-universe perspective - see WP:IN-U. A model article may be useful here - there are several FAs about fictional characters, such as Jabba the Hutt, that may be useful for ideas and examples to follow. I would also look at FLs that may be models.
• Article needs a copyedit to cleanup the language in places. For example, Hazumu Osaragi (大佛 はずむ, Osaragi Hazumu?) is a student, born male, at Kashima high school in the fictional setting of Kashima ward in Tokyo, Japan near Mt. Kashima, and is the main character in the series.[1] is a bit of a runon sentence, or some things do not seem encyclopedic in tone or seem POV, naturally in She has been practicing the flute for many years and is very good at it, so naturally she joins her school's music ensemble when she enters high school.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Cutie Honey

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because ten months after splitting the article from Cutie Honey, and almost a week after its current B-class rating, I don't think I have much more to add about the 1994 OVA series. In short, I want to make it a GA, at least.

• I've noticed several discussions (such as this and this), suggesting e.g. that plot info and minor characters should be left out of the "Characters" section. To date I've considered the villains of each episode to be minor and have left them out. What (or who) else should be removed (or added) there? How should I split out plot-related character stuff: to a subsection of "Production" or "Characters", or should I just remove it? What other info should I re-arrange?
  • I'd suggest, moving the characters section to List of Cutie Honey characters as a foundation for a character list for the whole franchise, and simply placing a {{See also|List of Cutie Honey characters}} on top of the plot section. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

    Check the list and main article, I moved the characters. With all the Honey media out there, though, I won't even attempt to make that list comprehensive. --an odd name 22:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

    (I split off a list of episodes as well.) --an odd name 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    (See also the merge suggestion I made at Talk:Cutie Honey The Live.) --an odd name 06:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

    I decided to put the character list back. I unindented it and put the voice-actor lines within the prose (at the end), and there might still be plot (in Spider, etc.) that can be moved to the episode list I split off, so it might be barely small enough to stay. The size of the bigger listings (Honey, Danbei, Chokkei, Dolmeck) might be a problem, but I think they are justified by their relative importance and length of time in the OVA. --an odd name 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    An embedded list is fine. Right now however, the character section is too large. Could you reduce it to a thrid of its current size? (You might want to look at Serial Experiments Lain for inspiration.) -- Goodraise (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    Not sure I can get it to a third of the original, but check now. I moved cameo stuff to the "Production" section. --an odd name 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    • The only statement of the third paragraph of "Production and background" that's relevant is "Jessica Calvello [...] was hand-picked by Nagai to perform the voice of Honey". The rest is off-topic to the article. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The reduced size of the characters section is a lot better, especially with the increased "Production and background" section, but it is still too large. At the very least, it should not be the largest section. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

      I've reduced it still further, and tried to lengthen and copyedit other sections. I doubt it'll ever get to the desired length (short of making the characters unrecognizable, or using non-prose or shorthand) but I've proposed deletion of the spinoff article as it'll now only serve to dupe everything in the main one. Won't go for speedy-delete as others have edited it. --an odd name 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

      This size is good. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm considering removing the stuff about George Manley in "Reception" that I added, because he is an ADV voice actor. Thoughts? Should CmdrTaco's review be axed too?

  Taco's been removed (both sites linked by the statement are down anyway). --an odd name 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  If George Manley isn't independent, perhaps his statements fit into the "Production and background" section? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sounds right to me. Moved. --an odd name 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lacking reliable English sources for many facts, I tried to make some reasonable Japanese translations based on what Unihan (一応, "for the time being", was surprisingly troubling for online translators—Web programmers take note!), http://nihongo.j-talk.org/, translation sites, the little Japanese I've actually learned in school, and common sense could all tell me; I'm pretty sure I've screwed something up.
• I have yet to find any sales figures or Japanese reviews for this series. Anyone know of sources containing them?

I'd welcome any other suggestions for improvement. (This is my first peer review request.)

Thanks, an odd name 19:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done a few edits to clear things up for me, and I've a couple of questions - was Daiko a sukeban, perchance? Why is Go Nagai's image right down at the very bottom? Why don't the individual episodes have episode summaries? I've added a line to Danbei saying that he's a carry-on character from the 70s versions of Cutie Honey, as the summary kind of raises a question, by saying he is *now* such-and-such. Someone who is unfamiliar with the franchise may get confused. The article is really very good!!!!! :D --Malkinann (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Malkinann (I still don't like "gynoid" because that article isn't well-sourced on that, but I'll keep it in). For your three questions:

1. According to geocities.com/mayor_light, Daiko and Akakabu are, in fact, modeled after two characters from Nagai's Oira Sukeban (Delinquent in Drag). I hope e.g. the Perfect Guides say more on this, as fansites aren't quite the best sources and it would be nice to say more than "well see, some guy on Geocities says they kinda look alike, and well they kinda do, there you go that's my source!" (There's also this slightly related fact that I can't quite verify, lacking the actual encyclopedia or even a page #.)
2. I moved Go to "Production" and re-staggered the images and media.
3. That'll take a while. :(

--an odd name 08:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fill in some episode summaries (more still need to be written, so I'll have to watch the whole series again which I won't mind :P) and address suggestions. Some things I mentioned weren't talked about, but were minor to me anyway. Frankly I think the main article is (at least damn close to) a GA now, so I'll close this review; I thank Malkinann, Goodraise, and Ryulong (who commented here) for their help and comments. To quote Magus, "Forward..." --an odd name 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to move this to FL. However, I'm not entirely sure what an FL would include, so I'd like to run this article/list through here first.

Thanks, DARTH PANDA^duel 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• The list is insufficiently categorized.
  • I added a single category, but I couldn't think of anything else to add... NOCTURNENOIR^talk 13:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• The lead needs a complete overhaul, using other episode lists from Category:FL-Class anime and manga articles as examples.
• The list as a whole needs cleanup. MOS violations include:
  • References shouldn't state the language, if it is English.
    • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 13:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Some references are missing a publisher.
    • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The caption of the image in the lead is overly long.
    • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 13:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There should be no bolded text in the lead.
    • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The list shouldn't start with "This is an episode listing".
    • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The kanji and romanization of the series' title should only be given in the main article, not here.
    • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Using parentheses within the prose should be avoided if possible. For example, "distributed in North America by Pioneer Entertainment (now Geneon Entertainment)" could be changed to "distributed in North America by Geneon Entertainment, formerly known as Pioneer Entertainment".
    • Fixed. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Lastly, I suspect, the list will need a thorough copy-edit. But, that's not exactly my strong side...

Hope this was helpful. Good luck. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just realized that I had fixed the other list I had on pr... Crossed out items are now fixed on this list. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to move this to FL. However, I'm not entirely sure what an FL would include, so I'd like to run this article/list through here first.

Thanks, DARTH PANDA^duel 02:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a series I have never heard of. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There are many episode list FLs, some on anime series - I would look at some of those for ideas and examples to follow. One possible model FL is List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1).
• I would make clearer the connection between the manga and the episodes - are they new material or an adaptation of the books?
• I would also explain the extra two episodes on the DVDs - were they ever broadcast? How did the events in them affect the second season? Why were they made?
• There are several abbreviations that need to be explained on first use, for example ... animated by AIC, and produced by TBS.[1] I note that TBS is explained in the next sentence, but it needs to be explained in the first place it is used.
• The episode summaries call Belldandy a "goddess" but the lead calles her an "angel" - which is it?
• What are TV-sized versions of the theme music?
• Language is unclear in several places - for example The season was released to Japan between April and December of 2005.[3] seems to be about the Japanese DVD release, but is not clear.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... NOCTURNENOIR^talk 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)