Wikipedia:Peer review/X (manga)/archive1

X (manga)

I've listed this article for peer review because writing has proven harder than I expected. It's my first article on a manga series so I had absolutely no frame of reference. Besides the usual pointers, I'd like to know if there's anything lacking and if it's good enough. Thanks, Nohansen (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. :) I have some things to say and it'll probably come over as pretty aggressive, so don't take it too personally. It's in the nature of peer reviews that they hurt the main contributors badly. :) Also, everything which follows is my personal opinion even if I don't specify it. :)

Lead.

Too many paragraphs. Three is the absolute maximum IMO but in this case, just two would be enough: first three can be merged together without much information loss and so can the last two.
There are no inline quotations in the lead, which is a bit ambiguous: on one hand, it unloads the section greatly, yet on the other, it makes one nervous about whether the statements are sourced or not.

Plot.

It is just a brief introduction, a synopsis. One'd expect a complete brief summary of manga storyline from a good article. Plot differences in television series and movie could be then covered in the respective sections. Oh, and the plot summary should be at least superficially OOU.

Characters.

I'd add the names of all Dragons (at least, in their original allegiances) to the respective sections, just for the sake of completeness. Plus, of course, links to their respective sections in the characters list.

Publication.

The reason why the title was changed to X/1999 appears unsourced. Overall, it might be a good idea for someone to go over an article and post {{fact}}s wherever needed. I could do that but I require your consent.

Adaptations.

See my comments on the plot.

Design.

"Clamp's X defies convention" is too strong a statement. It definitely needs to be mildered down a bit. "According to critics, Clamp's..." Or someting like that.
Too brassy: "ladies of Clamp", "childhood sweetheart", "to tell the tale", "walk their path" (overall, that whole paragraph violates the encyclopedic tone guidelines heavily).
"The ensemble cast, inspired on Takizawa Okikuni's Nansō Satomi Hakkenden" Source?
The whole duality discussion in Motifs can be merged in a single paragraph. As can the dreaming and the fate parts, respectively.

Media.

I'd place this section immediately after the Adaptations, because they describe similar things.

The images appear to be appropriately tagged and FUed except for the one in the infobox: is it really a logo rather than manga cover? :) --Koveras ^☭ 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been helpful, thank you. Like I said, this article has proven considerably harder to write than my other two, so any criticism is welcomed. I'll get to work in the next few of hours.

About the sources: Besides the naming issue with Dark Horse Comics (which I got from X's ANN entry) all is sourced with the CLAMP interviews. The line about Hakkenden comes from the interview in CLAMP no Kiseki 8. Since I already used that inline citation earlier in the paragraph, I though it'd look bloated if I used it again. Same with the lead; I normally don't cite the lead since it's a summary (of a well-referenced article).

If you want to tag some stuff as {{fact}}s is fine by me. I'll provide the citation.

And the infobox image it's neither a manga cover nor a logo. It's the TV series title screen. I'll fix that, too.--Nohansen 12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMO it's better to place the citation at the end of the paragraph if it sources several statements: it kinda transmits the message "everything up 'til now was taken from this source", whereas a footnote after the first sentence doesn't really say anything about what follows... --Koveras ^☭ 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]