Talk:Hotarubi no Mori e/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Prose

• "According to Midorikawa, Hotarubi no Mori e was successful because even the people who were critical of her artwork were drawn into the story and read it from start to finish. Because of the previous criticism, she speculated in 2003 that hiding Gin's face behind a mask had helped." - What previous criticism? (Did they think she couldn't draw faces/expressions?)

Unfortunately, the information I'm pulling from is a translation of the "Author's Notes" in the original manga, and Midorikawa did not elaborate. It would be nice if we could provide more details, but I think it's kind of self-explanatory. If you think I could reword it to make it clearer while also not leading the reader on to ask such questions, I can try. – Maky ^« talk » 07:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Midorikawa attributed the success of Hotarubi no Mori e" - this seems like it would fit better in "reception"

Good point. Moved. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• " In 2011, she shared her excitement for the new anime film" - talking about her emotional experiences doesn't seem to fit quite right in the "production" section. Is there a way to distill out the encyclopedic information from this, maybe describing the process of the manga being optioned for an anime, and her involvement in that...? Same in describing the new chapter - that she responded to a request (or popularity of the anime/film?) to write an additional chapter, but seeing that the original story was complete, she chose to instead expand the story from the perspective of the male character... and again when discussing the voice acting, more focus on the emotional experience of the actors but not the facts around selection of voice actors, the recording process etc

I like that careful observation. Being a very emotional story, I figured that the emotions reported by the author and voice actors merited mention (as encyclopedic content). Personally, I don't see encyclopedic content as cold and emotionless. People respond to art with their emotions as well as their logical minds, so that is part of the "reception" on which I feel we should document. What I try to avoid is adding emotional content into my own summaries and descriptions, for example: "This story beautifully illustrates..." In re-reading this paragraph, I don't see any production value at all, and have therefore moved it to the "Reception" section along with the preceding material, as noted in the previous point. The only thing I haven't moved is the quick note about the voice actor who cried... only because I couldn't find a place to fit it in (yet). Now that everything else is in its appropriate context, let me know if you agree with this assessment. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• The anime section talks a bit about production. It's becoming less clear to me what the focus of the earlier production section is (production of the manga only? manga and anime? other?). Some reorganization might help to clarify.

Some of this is me still learning how to write an article like this. Some of what you're talking about does sound like it belongs in the "Production" section, but then other tidbits about length and other stuff seem to belong under the "Anime" section... but I'm not sure what to pair it with. (I've tried, so let me know how it flows.) As for the production section, the WikiProject this article falls under suggests writing the article about the original content (in this case the manga was written first), and then build on it by also discussing the derivatives (sequels, spin-offs, anime, video games, etc.). In the "Production" section, I start by discussing the manga and try to move on to the new chapter and anime. I hope that as the new sources get translated (scheduled for ~2 weeks from now, per today's email update) there will be enough information about each to merit subsections. For now, I'm holding off because it doesn't look like it to me. If you disagree, I can go ahead and break it up now. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• The reception section only talks about the anime, not the manga. Can you find new information (or slightly repackage pieces of information already included in the article) to give a sense of the popularity of the manga in a few sentences, before the discussion of the anime's reception? Lemurbaby (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Per the discussion we just had on your talk page, I'm going to pass this now but leave this point open in the hope that material will be translated or found that can help to balance this section with a greater discussion of the reception of the manga. Great work on this - Lemurbaby (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

• All non-free fair use rationales look good.

References

• All cites are in templates, used appropriately, and of good quality.

Looks good - and thanks for this, I hadn't heard of this one before but just found it on youtube and am watching it as I type. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Your concerns about the organization of the article are very valid. It all has to do with the article's history. I originally wrote it from the English sources, which offer very limited production information. After I made the acquaintance of a major contributor to the Midorikawa fan sites and that person offered to help translate the Japanese material, I have slowly added in what I've received. The headings of the article follow the guidelines for WikiProject Anime and manga, and sometimes it was hard to find enough material to merit a section, but hard to place the scraps without a proper header. I agree that some stuff belongs in the "Production" section, while some of the content there needs to be moved to the "Reception" section, possibly including the material on the emotional reactions of the author and actors. Anyway, I'm too tired tonight to reconstruct the article, and if I don't have time tomorrow or Monday (which I have a lot planned), then I will definitely do it on Tuesday. If I'm lucky, maybe the last of the translations will arrive before I start, and then I can finally organize everything (which should include more production and reception info) and pull it all together. But again, thank you! The suggestions are very helpful. – Maky ^« talk » 07:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)