Wikipedia:Peer review/Yuri on Ice/archive2

Yuri on Ice

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to promote this article to Featured Article status. I've had this article undergo an earlier peer review when promoting this article up to GA status, and I think I've addressed everything in the former review.

However, there have been some significant changes since the last review, namely that the series will be continuing with a new film. Thus, the media section has been re-included. Can you let me know how best to cover everything, and what can be down to make get this article promoted to FA.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IDV

Lead

~~Is it necessary to include an infobox component for the film, if there is no information available about it whatsoever?~~
~~"The two Yuris" seems like some pretty casual, non-encyclopedic wording. Change to "Yuri K. and Yuri P."~~
This section is pretty short compared to the article length - consider expanding it with a summary of the production and reception sections. (update) For an article of this length, you'd normally want around three paragraphs for the lead.
We don't need to be super-detailed in the lead, as it's just a summary of the article - for instance, for the most part what specific awards the series won, when the film was announced, or how many blu-rays were sold isn't necessary.

Production and Media

A section titled "Media" with a sub-section titled "Anime" only makes sense if the topic of the article is "the media franchise Yuri on Ice" rather than "the 2016 anime". I think the best and easiest solution is reformatting the media section to fit the "anime series" topic - for instance by renaming it "Related media" or something similar.
The information under the "Anime" sub-section seems like it would fit better under "Production" - especially since it introduces staff working on the show. I would just merge the two short "Anime" paragraphs into a single one, and move it to the top of the "Production" section.
~~I would probably also remove the "Music" and "Film" headings, since there is so little content in each of the sections - add the headings back in the future if there is more information available.</s<~~

~~There are two photos of Kenji Miyamoto on Commons that are free to use - would be a shame to not make use of one of them here.~~

~~Reception (and Critical reception in particular)~~
You make generalized statements like Critics have praised the character of Yuri K. for... and However, it was criticized for not explaining the technical aspects..., but only cite one source. There needs to be multiple critics that are being cited for that statement to exist. Same for The series received positive reviews from critics, which either needs a Metacritic-like aggregate or the citing of positive reviews.

~~Isn't the Charapedia poll something the public votes on, not something by critics and an editorial team? Should go in popularity then, right?~~

The section is pretty short, and could do with going into a little more specifics. Why did critics like it? Were there some mixed opinions? What didn't critics like? (update) User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections gives some good tips on how to write a good reception section. Basically, with a reception section you want to tell a narrative - you start off with general, big-picture stuff (the series was well received), then organize the rest of the section into various sub-topics. For instance, you might have one paragraph about what critics thought of the writing, one about the animation, one about the music, etc.

This is a Japanese series - is there any information on what Japanese reviewers thought of it?

On the day the first-season finale aired, Crunchyroll delayed its stream for 20 minutes for undisclosed reasons. This has nothing to do with popularity, and seems extremely trivial either way - I would just remove it.

~~Awards is heavily tied to critical reception - I would suggest moving it up a bit, so it's the second sub-section, just after Critical reception.~~

~~"Same-sex relationship" is slightly awkward as a section header - I would change it to something like "Depiction of same-sex relationships"~~
~~Other comments~~
~~Archive the web sources while they're still alive, so you don't have to worry about them dying or the websites they're on reorganizing their stuff and changing article URLs in the process.~~

There's an inconsistency in how works/publishers are written in the references - for some, the work is linked, for some it isn't, for some it's in italics, and for some it's plain text. It doesn't matter how you do it, but pick one style and use that for all references.
~~--IDV^talk 13:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~
@IDV - I've tried to carry out the changes you requested. There is no metacritic option sadly, and I've asked on the talk page for help finding reviews of the series from Japan. How do you archive web sources? ISD (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ISD: Copy the URL you want to archive, go to https://web.archive.org/ and paste it into the search bar. Choose a snapshot of the webpage (probably the latest snapshot available), and copy the URL of that page. If there is no snapshot taken, go to the main web.archive page and paste the URL into "Save Page Now" instead. Go to the citation in the article, and add |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url=, with archive-date being the date the snapshot was taken and dead-url being a yes/no parameter that shows if the reference is dead (so set it to "no" if you can still access it).--IDV^talk 19:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV:} I've expanded the lead and tried to improve the critical reception section. ISD (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at this soon.--IDV^talk 08:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ISD: I did some further minor edits, but it's looking better than it did before. I think the reception section could do with another look-through by someone more knowledgeable in writing about reception than I am, though - there's an art to it, and I am still a novice.--IDV^talk 09:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Tintor2
[edit]
I would recommend to expand the lead section to have at least three paragraphs. Make sure every section in the body has mentioned in the lead.

The production section could be expanded to balance the huge reception the article has but that tends to be difficult with most of the anime and manga articles.

Avoid short paragraphs as much as possible (imagine you are writing a formal letter) in related media.

"Yuri on Ice was well-received by figure skaters, including Johnny Weir, Evgenia Medvedeva, Denis Ten, Evgeni Plushenko and Masato Kimura,[29][30]" could be expanded. What did they say about the anime?

For a FA you need to archive every single url. Use either [www.webcitation.org webcitation], web archive or Archive is

Lastly, for a source review you will have to wikilink every single reference (not in the article, but citations, see Allen Walker or Naruto Uzumaki that wikilinks every citation even if they are repeated).
Are you talking about stuff like writing "Anime News Network" in the ref rather than just "Anime News Network"? To my knowledge either style is fine as long as it's consistent.--IDV^talk 19:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Always use a wikilink in the citation regardless of how many times you have to repeat it. See for example Tidus#References where all references to Square Co. and the games are always linked.Tintor2 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out where you've read this? The FA criteria only say consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required.--IDV^talk 19:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely forgot. Strange considering how I have been seeing the manual of style but I couldn't find the guideline.Tintor2 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I checked, there is no rule for wikilinks in citations.Tintor2 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC) That's all I could point out. Good work with the article and thanks for your response in Yu Kanda's FAC. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: Sorry for taking so long to reply as I've been dealing with IDV's comments. Luckily many were the same as the ones you have highlighted. I've done most of the stuff you mentioned. The only thing I've not yet done is the review archiving. If everything else is OK, I'll get on with doing that. ISD (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~@ISD: Already beat you to that using the archive bot so don't worry about that.Tintor2 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~
Comments by PanagiotisZois
[edit]
I know this might be a little hard, seeing as this is an anime, but does any information regarding the plot's development exist? Like what Kubo's original plans for the story were, if any changes occured, stuff like that? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think if they do, they are only currently in Japanese language sources, and the only places that would publish them would be unreliable sources like translated interviews posted on blogs. More reliable sources might become available in future English language releases. ISD (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]