Talk:Earl Cain/Archive 1

Character list

Since the character section on this page is most of the page, I think the character list should have its own page. If nobody has any problems with this, then I will move the character section to its own page. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. There is now a separate page for the characters:List of Godchild characters. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, in case anyone was wondering, the page got moved. The character list is now at List of Earl Cain Series characters. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Move page to Earl Cain Series

Hi. I think that this page should be renamed Earl Cain Series, so that it can include the prequel, The Cain Saga, as well. That way, it will be able to cover The Cain Saga too. If no one minds, then I will move the page. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Chapter list

I've started an impromptu chapter list (i.e. no real formatting) at User:Dinoguy1000/Chapter lists#Earl Cain, feel free to contribute to it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I already have put The Cain Saga into a formatted chapter list; should I add that to the chapter list? Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just copy the essentials from my list and add them to your (properly formatted and much more complete) list. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Okay, I have rewriten the reception section paragraph into two paragraphs: one for The Cain Saga and one for Godchild. Well here it is.

Jason Thompson of Manga:The Complete Guide felt The Cain Saga had "repetitive but entertaining pulp" stories. In her reviews of the first and second volumes of The Cain Saga, Danielle Van Gorder of Mania Entertainment found the stories "somewhat predictable" and criticized the "disjointed" feel of the first volume; however, she felt that by the second volume, the stories had become more connected as a whole. Although she found the art "much less refined" than Kaori Yuki's later work, Angel Sanctuary, she noted the "sometimes beautiful and sometimes gruesome detail" of The Cain Saga. Jason Thompson felt that the "often rough and crowded" art of The Cain Saga "gets the story across" in contrast to the art of Godchild.

In contrast, Godchild was generally more well recieved by reviewers. Deb Aoki of About.com put Godchild on her Horror Manga Recommended Reading List. She praised it, saying that "The art is ravishing but it doesn't candy-coat the grim stories and decadent deeds detailed in these stories". A.E. Sparrow of IGN Comics saw Godchild as "a more gothic Scooby Doo without all the formalas and goofy humor". In her follow up review, Danielle Van Gorder said "[d]espite a rough beginning, this series has really come a long way and developed into something that a wide range of readers can love". Amber S.'s review at Teen Ink praised the "dark and mysterious atmosphere" of Godchild as well as the characters and plotline.In contrast, Jason Thompson criticized the art and plot of Godchild, feeling that the details overcompensated for the "confused" storyline.

Any thoughts about it? Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Shounen-ai?

I was on onemanga and Godchild was categorized as shounen-ai. Is it right to presume so or is the whole Riff/Cain thing just platonic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.63.181 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For starters, onemanga, which is a copyvio site so we can't use it as a source, is not a reliable source. Also, categorizing something as shounen-ai requires doing a bit of original research. What can be said is that the whole series ran in Hana to Yume, which is a shōjo manga anthology. --Farix (Talk) 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Um...I've read the whole series and it is just (very beautiful) platonic love. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cover picture

Hi. I decided to upload the Japanese cover of volume 1. The problem is the picture is way too big and I have no idea how to shrink it (or if it is even possible). If anybody knows how to fix this, please please do. The picture is at: File:Cain 01 cover.jpg. Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it's a JPEG, shrinking it isn't possible without some quality loss. I think there's a project somewhere around here where you can request image work... Unfortunately, I can never remember where it's at, so I simply tagged the image to be rescaled. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I found what I hope is the project you mentioned. (Is it Wikipedia: Graphic Lab/Image workshop?) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's it (and the picture has already been resized). I actually found it after tagging the image, and then added a link on my userpage so I won't forget it again. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem

Um... in the production section, it says that the line "And that's all" is from "This Old Man" but in the actual poem there is no such line (in the English version anyway). So, um the question is: in the Japanese version of "This Old Man" is there a line something like "And that's all"? Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

GA

So, does anyone know what it would take to bring this article up to good article status? Any suggestions? Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

This is also an FA semi-auto reviewer so it can be a bit harsh. Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Drama CD picture

Hi. Could someone take a look at the drama CD picture and see if it's low resolution. If it isn't, could someone fix it so that it is? Thank you. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be low res enough. Extremepro (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earl Cain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review, checking quick fail criteria. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

✓ Pass no problems there. Extremepro (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Lead: ✓ Pass
   • Plot: ✓ Pass
   • Production: ✓ Pass
   • Manga: ✓ Pass
   • Drama CDs: It is a bit short compared to other sections. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
   • Reception:✓ Pass

   b (MoS):

   • Ok. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   a (references):

   • The article appears to be well referenced. However, Reference 16 has "COMICS" in all caps. Consider "赤い羊の刻印 (2) (花とゆめComics―伯爵カインシリーズ)". Also (コミック) (comics) is redundant at the end of the Amazon title.
   • Personal choice: wikilink Reference 45: --> Manga: The Complete Guide

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • I'm not sure if reference 23, ICv2 is a reliable source. Correct me if I'm wrong.

   c (OR):

   • No problems here. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is suitably broad in scope

   b (focused):

   • The article remains focused. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Article adheres to WP:NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • The article appears stable, obviously new material is added. No evidence of edit-warring. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   • The article only has one image apart from the one in the infobox. More pictures are needed. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • All images used have appropriate captions . Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
   • All non-free images used have a fair use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Reference 16's name does not meet WP:MOSTITLE. I shall place the article on hold whilst the above concerns are addressed. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Extremepro. Thank you for taking the time to look over this article. I have made the changes you suggested, except for adding another image. If Tokyo Mew Mew, a featured article, only needs one picture outside of the infobox, then I don't see why Earl Cain would need more than one picture outside of the infobox. :) (By the way, ICv2 is on the list of reliable sources[1]. It's listed right before Popculture Shock.com) However, you say on your user page that you have edited significantly to this article before it was nominated and point two under number 1 in How to review an article states that reviewers who have contributed significantly to the article cannot review it. I'm not criticizing your review, which brought up some good points about the article. Despite your good intentions, the review may be unintentionally biased, because you have worked on it. Again, thank you for taking the time to review this article. :) I'm going to take this to the WP:GAN talkpage and see if anybody over there can resolve this. Thank you again for taking the time to review this article and I'm not criticizing your review. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CarpetCrawler's review

This article looks great, but I do have some concerns.

- Wikify "Kaori Yuki" in the lead.

- "However, Cain falls in love with a amnesiac fortuneteller named Meridiana; when Cain sets out to dig up Meridiana's supposed grave, Emeline follows him and is killed by Jack the Ripper, a hired murderer for Delilah who then uses the fresh organs and blood of the victims for its experiments" Could you maybe shorten this a little bit? It's a bit long and confusing when you read it out loud.

- "After discovering Emeline's death, Cain confronts the Ripper in his lair, bringing along Meridiana." How did Emeline die?

- Also, what kind of mysteries are being solved? Are they murder mysteries?

- I feel that the "Plot" section, as well as its subsection, "Godchild", is a little lengthy. I also got confused at some points, and had to re-read some things. Is there any way to trim it a little bit?

- Could you expand the "Drama CDs" section? Maybe you could expand on information, add basic plot info, and such?

Until my concerns have been addressed, I will place this article on hold. Please leave me a message on my talkpage if you have addressed the concerns, or if you have any questions. Good luck! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Carpet Crawler and thank you for taking the time to review this article. :)

1.  Done
2.  Done
3. She's killed by Jack the Ripper.
4. They're murder mysteries.  Done
5. The manga itself is confusing. No lie. :) Specifically, which points do you get confused at? (I'll do my best to fix the confusing points!)
6. Do you mean like adding track listings?

Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to know that it's a murder mytery manga! Are the murders as creative as in Detective Conan? :) And about the confuision, just in general I got confused. I think the problem is all of the names are used repeatedly, when "he" or "she" could also work. It looks like a LOT happens in such a short span... And about the last point... I had meant that maybe you could expand that section, as it looked a little stubby. No need to do track listings, just maybe some slight expansion? And your other corrections have been noted. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 08:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having never read Detective Conan, I can't compare the two. :) (But it sounds similar to Earl Cain, minus the crazy abusive father) Fixed the problem with the names and will add more to the drama CD section tomorrow. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a plan. I guess Goodraise has taken over this review, so I will let them take over. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded drama CD section. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, all of my concerns have been addressed. The bottom discussion about realiable sources is confusing to read, so I have no clue what the consensus is about the sources. If those bottom concerns have been addressed, I will be happy to pass this article. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 09:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the sources were all reliable. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will pass this article. Great job! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 02:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes the following sources reliable? Courtney Kraft. "The Cain Saga". GraphicNovelReporter.com. Retrieved 2 April 2009. Robin Brenner. "GODCHILD, Volume 1". Teenreads.com. Retrieved 4 April 2009. Courtney Kraft. "Godchild, Volumes 1-8". Graphic Novel Reporter.com. Retrieved 4 April 2009. Stricken previous three. Accepted as reliable sources for statements of opinion as they claim to have an editorial staff.[2][3] Publisher of the references should be changed to "The Book Report". Goodraise 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Leroy Douresseaux (13 May 2007). "The Cain Saga: Volume 1". ComicBookBin. Retrieved 17 April 2009. Stricken previous one. Accepted as reliable source for statements of opinion as they claim to have an editorial staff and because of several other statements on their about page and its various sub-pages. Publisher of the reference should be changed to "Coolstreak Cartoons". Goodraise 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC) "On the Shojo Beat: Godchild, Nana, and S.A." Popcultureshock.com. 13 November 2007. Retrieved 30 March 2009. Stricken previous one. Accepted as reliable source for statements of opinion because it claims to have editorial staff and to have "worked on numerous print and web-based publications".[4] Publisher of the reference should be changed to "PopCultureShock". Goodraise 20:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Lori Henderson. "Comics Village - Godchild Volume 7". Comics Village.com. Retrieved 30 March 2009. Stricken previous one. Accepted with reservation as reliable source for statements of opinion after this comment. Goodraise 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) A few of these sites are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC) So? Goodraise 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC) There are some links to discussion in which they were marked as reliable.Tintor2 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I don't recall ever having found anything useful in the archives of WT:ANIME. Be my guest and look through those discussions to see if you can find a valid rational for reliability. Goodraise 02:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Here an explanation of comicbookkin here a discussion about two.Tintor2 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I plead guilty to have asked WP:RS/N to validate those sites. For Comics village, i get interested in it as a source when i found some of their reviews mentioned in the Dark Horse website [5][6]. --KrebMarkt 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC) If I was publishing manga and someone gave it a good review, I would certainly link to that review. Digital Manga Publishing for example links to this blog. I'm sorry, but that's no sign of reliability. If http://www.comicsvillage.com/ has an "about" page, I'm yet to find it. The statement on their front page, "Warning! This site has a pretty hands off editorial approach.", is not exactly confidence inspiring either. Goodraise 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Hi. WP:RS/N said that the other two, (Teenreads.com and Graphicnovelreporter.com) could be used for opinion only (aka reviews).[7] :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Off-topic comment: RS/N turned down active anime, I guess they overlooked that page & beside we had validate it as RS within the project here and it is even present in our project list of online resources --KrebMarkt 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC) What people need to realize is that a Wikipedian's statement that "I think it's reliable." counts for nothing. Nothing. Links to WT:ANIME, WP:RS/N, or WP:ANIME's cute little RSs list can't back up any claim of reliability. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. IMHO, for that list to become useful, it should provide links such as the one you just provided, because that's how the question "What makes the following sources reliable?" should be answered, with a solid claim of reliability (preferably backed up by a reliable, third-party source) to the face of the reviewer who had the audacity to doubt that you (as the nominator) did not check your sources. :) Goodraise 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Drama CDs and the South Korean publisher

The Japanese Wikipedia lists three drama CDs,[8] but I've only found the first two on Amazon. Plus, could somebody find a ref for the South Korean publisher, Daiwon C.I.? It's listed in the infobox and must have been overlooked. :) Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The third Drama CD was never released, just a freebie given to subscribers to the Hana to Yume magazine. I can't find any refs that Daiwon C.I. published Earl Cain. It wasn't listed on ANN. Nor on the Daiwon's website. Extremepro (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha! That explains a lot. Well, I'll go remove it from the infobox. Do you think the drama CD is notable enough to be mentioned? Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it's just a freebie CD, I doubt it. It's not listed on Amazon nor cdjapan. Extremepro (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

At this point, 21 of the 57 sources on this page come from reviews. (About one third.) So the question is how many more need to be added? Does every single review have to be included? I'm really really happy that the series got this much coverage, but still... Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because if so, here's another one:

• [9] - Mania
• [10] - Active Anime

Serialization dates

Hi. Has anyone found a reliable source for the serialization dates? Because the Japanese wikipedia lists the serialization dates for Godchild as 2001—2003, which doesn't match the 2001—2004 currently listed on the English page. Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)