Talk:Tokyo Babylon

Fair use rationale for Image:Tbabylon volume1 cover.jpg

Image:Tbabylon volume1 cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tokyo Babylon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020101311/http://www.mania.com/tokyo-babylon_article_75090.html to http://www.mania.com/tokyo-babylon_article_75090.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Let's begin.

• Are you sure it's necessary to specify that "the plot begins with a monster of the week approach"? You may consider moving it to another section of the article, IMHO.
  • Removed
• Can you quickly explain what an onmyōji is?
  • Basically an old fashioned way to refer to exorcists who work for the government. Subaru is often onmyoji. Rephrased a bit.
• "and egging on their mutual friend Seishiro Sakurazuka, a kindly, 25-year-old veterinarian, when he declares his love for Subaru." So the girl is used to egging and it's a reinterred thing over time? Or is it something she only does once after the declaration of love? It's not very clear to me.
  • Reworded. Seishiro claims to be in love with Subaru often until the ending.
• "A shadowy childhood moment may provide the answer". Pretty informal. I would delete this.
  • Removed.

That's all for now. Good job.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Perfect. Now:

• "but Clamp wanted to give it a more modern tone". What does this mean? And is this related with the initial title? Try to explain it better, cause it's not clear to me.
  • They don't specify how it is more modern in that book
• "The pastry Roppongi Alrrond". What is this?
  • Removed.
• Add a link for Cardcaptor Sakura.
  • Added
• ".. with Zona Negativa stating that despite the series being a shōjo manga aimed at young women, Subaru's hero journey felt more like that of a manga aimed at young men, shōnen manga, due to the many types of enemies he faces while finding his foes' deep nature". I suggest to move this in Themes.
  • Done
• "The character's relationship with Seishiro led novelist Yoshiki Tanaka to call it tragic and striking, despite his early thoughts it was a typical use of a relationship to appeal to female readers". Ditto.
  • Done
• Regarding Subaru's darker characterization in the finale, ... as he saw Hokuto as another part of him". Idem.
  • Done
• "Subaru and Seishirō return in Clamp's apocalyptic manga X. ... Seishiro as a vampire hunter pursuing him." Why not creating a section in Media (e.g. "Other medias") with this?

That's all.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Done. Thanks for the review.

@TeenAngels1234:Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Brief summa. Brief but concise. Relevant and necessary information is all present. Good prose.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)