Wikipedia:Peer review/Cardcaptor Sakura/archive1

Cardcaptor Sakura

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i ws wondering if it is ready to be featured-class. if not, perhaps the issues could be mentioned here.

Thanks, Lucia Black (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to remove the gamespot sources for the games, WP:VG considers them unreliable (same as gamefaqs). You can probably get away with using Famitsu. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much for your input, i appreciate it.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about adding information from this source? In paragraph about Cardcaptors it may be useful. 78.25.121.163 (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lucia Black (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by DragonZero

• Consult with Juhachi before nominating, since you are not a significant editor for this article.
• If you do plan on nominating this, writing style has to be consistent throughout the article. Meaning you either have to retain the same writing style in the current article, or have someone else rewrite the article. This was part of 1a, but I doubt writing styles vary enough to notice.
• Nihongo lead
• "abbreviated as CCS" Is this an abbreviation Clamp uses?
• First sentence introducing plot is a bit of a run-on
• "into a 70-episode anime TV series" IIRC, numbers under hundred should be in words unless they refer to something specific like an episode number
• "adapted into a 70-episode anime TV series by Madhouse that aired" Having "that" seems to ruin the flow
• "Two anime films were produced by Madhouse in August 1999 and July 2000. Ten video games were produced based on the series. Kodansha published art books, picture books and film comics for the manga and anime series."

We don't need a sentence detailing every number of release and their dates do we? The flow reads like a list. There are better ways to word subsequent releases.

• "in omnibus editions" ???
• "Cardcaptors aired on Kids' WB, Cartoon Network, Teletoon and Nickelodeon." The English version, right?
• "panned by critics who called the editing "ridiculous"" Source suggests only THEM considered this?
• I don't consider the plot's prose to be at the "brilliant" level needed for FA

• "ten-year-old fourth grader" Too much
• "Clow Cards from the Clow Book, created and named after half-English, half-Chinese sorcerer Clow Reed." There are better ways to introduce this to a general reader. Clow Book might not even be a necessary jargon.
• Does the brother need to be noted so soon in the first paragraph when he doesn't do anything?
• Character intros could use encasing commas at points.
• Second paragraph could introduce characters better, especially Yue.
• Unncessary jargon like final judgement
• I'm going to stop here. The rest of the plot is fluffed up with unnecessary detail. It also repeats the issues I mentioned above.

• "In the case of Cerberus, Ohkawa wanted a mascot-type companion for Sakura, but Nekoi tried various forms, including dogs and squirrels, before designing the final version."
• "While Ohkawa planned out Cardcaptor Sakura from beginning to end, she never talked about the plot with the other members" Can't really explain it, but the first part should be more clear.
• "Mokona initially drew Tomoyo so it would look like she was in love with Toya, which lead to her surprise when she received the script for the chapter which reveals Tomoyo loves Sakura." I feel this needs to be expanded for clarity.
• "The story was planned to be a "if you try your best, it'll work out" kind of story, but Ohkawa did not start out with Sakura's "It'll definitely be okay" mindset." ???
• "Ohkawa wanted to write a story that "minorities would feel comfortable with," referring to the same-sex and taboo relationships featured in the manga." Did she do anything about it? I think this was suggesting the author included those elements in because of what she wanted.
• "The series' main theme is expressed through Sakura, a main character designed to be open minded about different family structures and kinds of love." How was the main theme expressed through Sakura?
• "Ohkawa addressed the relationships by explaining the reason Tomoyo and Sakura did not end up together was not because Tomoyo is a girl, but rather because Sakura did not love Tomoyo in a romantic way." Addressed what relationships?
• The whole third paragraph, if I am right, is Jason Thompson's analysis on the main theme. This shouldn't be in production.
• "but they made a point to not use roses." What point did they prove?
• "Clamp wanted to incorporate transformation scenes into Cardcaptor Sakura, but because many magical girl manga have the girls wearing the same outfit, Clamp wanted Sakura to wear different costumes." Clarity. Something like "Clamp considered have Sakura transform into a magical girl. The idea was dropped for a vary of clothing instead"
• Australia and New Zealand-> Australasia?
• I'm going to assume a primary source can confirm they used Tokyopop's translations
• Leading zeros in ref
• I'm stopping at the manga section for now. The classic anime manga structure can not stand on FA anymore. I suggest removing the anime's plot in the plot section, and using a release and adaptation header style. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@DragonZero: Trust me, i'm not so inconsiderate to nominating the article before i even consult with the bigger contributors. Also i'm not that confident in the article completely to nominate it myself so soon, if others believe they can do it faster, then by all means. I just put this on peer review so i could try to do some work on the issues that i know i can fix.

But as for the classic anime and manga structure, its really hard to do that for this particular series. afterall the only major coverage is both manga and anime.Lucia Black (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not consideration, it is in the steps of FA. I took a look, it's easy to drop that structure. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets take it easy and seriously consider this if it really is "mandatory" for FA. After all, in the past others have pushed campaigns to change the structure of WP:ANIME regardless of it helping get to FA standards. Here in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria doesn't state anything that specific.

@DragonZero: rather get a third opinion on this or just make the FAC regardless because we have School Rumble who also has the exact same setup and no one has challenged it yet (granted some small issues are there but nothing that can't be fixed). And if it really is a glaring issue, its by no means an immediate fail to it being a FA, rather the issue will be said by a neutral editor and it can be fixed at that time, but its hard to say that the structure itself shows any glaring issues.

I'll be making all the fixes i possibly can that you mentioned, but the structure will probably be best to have a third opinion.Lucia Black (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Also i know its a step in the FA process, so is GA, but we've seen editors skip it and never get rectified for it. I'm not saying its appropriate, but people have done it in the past. Still, i fully intend to follow the guidelines.Lucia Black (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not in GA actually. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:GAN/I step 1. But missing the point, we should still focus on making the fixes.Lucia Black (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, one of the points you've made was countered here by Juhachi: [1] not to cause issue or anything. Just noting it so that it can be recognized. I feel the way you're tackling some of the points can be expressed better. question marks aren't helping me, and some points seem a little difficult to understand what the issue is exactly.Lucia Black (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

About the Juhachi thing, I was referring to the lead section. I reviewed the article top to bottom in order, so the first issues would be in the lead, followed by plot, then production. My preference for listing subsequent realizes in the lead would be similar to what I put for Rozen Maiden's lead, "Rozen Maiden has spun off anthology manga and novel stories, art books, and four anime series [...] The anime adaptions resulted in several audio disc releases and three video games." DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the lead section and simplify it. But could you modify your initial review? I think there are somethings that i dont understand.Lucia Black (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Juhachi

Regarding some of the changes recently implemented, there were two things I disagreed with. One was the removal of a paragraph from the production section because it discusses what Clamp did in certain instances when developing the work: At times, Clamp even ignores the Clow Cards for several chapters..., with Clamp carefully avoiding passing judgment.... The rest of the paragraph's content is meant to supplement this, and the end of the preceding paragraph: The series' main theme is expressed through Sakura....

My other main disagreement was moving the plot down to the anime section. I believe all of the plot info as written in the article should be put in the plot section, as this is where the reader would expect to find it, so placing a paragraph of plot in the anime sub-section of the media section seems kind of out of place to me. Also, as there is no separate article for the TV series, a large amount of this article's content deals with the anime (the TV series, films, audio CDs and reception sections all deal with the anime in some way), so I don't see a problem placing the plot of the manga and anime in the same section. Also, since I just condensed the plot per the suggestion above, the section is now short enough that we can keep all the plot info in one place.--十八 11:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)