Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kaze to Ki no Uta/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 May 2022 [1].

Kaze to Ki no Uta edit

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) and KuroMina (talk)17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like its forerunner The Heart of Thomas (brought to FAC last year), Kaze to Ki no Uta ("The Poem of Wind and Trees") is one of the most influential manga works of the 1970s, contributing significantly to the development of Japanese girls comics. I recently expanded the article and brought it to GA status, and to peer review in advance of this FAC. I believe the article now meets requirements for FA status, and welcome any feedback that can further improve it. (Sidebar: I've listed KuroMina as a co-nominator, as they sourced and translated multiple Japanese-language articles that helped to significantly expand the Development section of the article. The co-nomination is not an expectation or obligation to participate in this FAC, though they are certainly welcome to do so.) Morgan695 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Nomination is now at 5 supports, with image and source reviews completed. Morgan695 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • According to MOS:INOROUT, periods should be on the outside of quotation marks unless you are quoting a full sentence, so this would apply to instances like "with sad and painful human relationships and emotions." and "solid enough, if rather melodramatic.". There are points where the period is put on the outside, like "from now on, comics will probably be called 'Kaze to Ki no Uta and thereafter'"., so it is more so a matter of going back and making it consistent throughout.

This is my only comment. All of my comments have already been addressed in the peer review. Once this has addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 OK, I believe I've corrected the relevant quotations.
Thank you for addressing this point. I support the FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK edit

  • I'll try to review this soon. AryKun (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
Resolved issues
  • "1970, upon which" → "1970, following which"?
    • Done.
  • "improve her low level" → "increase the low level"
    • Done.
  • "depictions of sadomachosicm" → "depictions of sadomasochism"
    • Done.
  • 'rendered him as "a creature' → 'rendered him "a creature'
    • Done.
  • "(see Context above)" → This note isn't really necessary and is a bit intrusive.
    • I think it's useful to link the sections here, since "Context" references the specific works that inspired the series, as well as the narrative tropes in Hesse's works that influenced the artists.
  • "sold as of 2019" → Any more recent info?
    • Those are the most recent figures.
  • 'Cover page to "Demian"' in the alt text should be 'Cover page of "Demian"'
    • Done.

Support from Z1720 edit

  • "and which were aimed at an audience of teenage readers." Delete which were, or just which?
    • Done.
  • "Nagaike, Kazumi (2003)" is in the bibliography, but does not seem to be used as an inline reference.
    • Double checked my notes and Nagaike's article includes a pithy summary of Matsui's abjection argument, which I've cited in the article.
  • I checked the infobox and lede, and the information there is also included and cited in the article body.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version. Spotchecks not done.

  • 8, 68, & 69 show harv errors -- they don't point to anything in the bibliography.
    • Fixed.
  • Can we get page numbers for the chapter in 93 and in Shamoon in the bibliography?
    • Added. I can't confirm the page number for 93, but it's made redundant by the online source already confirming the information, so I've removed it.
  • You're inconsistent about the use of publisher locations; in the references, 95 has no location but the other books cited have a location; in the bibliography several more have no location. The location is optional but you should be consistent about either including it or not including it.
    • Should be consistent now.
  • Check the ISBN on 2; Worldcat can't find it.
    • Looks like a Worldcat error? Amazon has it listed as such.
  • What's the logic behind the organization of chapters in the bibliography? For chapters in McLelland and Takemiya I see you have the chapters listed in a sublist under those heads, but e.g. Matsui and Suzuki are not done that way.
    • Chapters should be consistent now.
  • Some chapters have "In" to indicate that the citation is to a chapter in an edited work (e.g. Matsui) and some don't (e.g. Thorn).
    • Corrected the Thorn reference; it was an irregular case where the chapter is an introduction written in a book with a different primary author. For Shamoon 2012, the book is written by Shamoon herself, so it seems redundant to state her name twice.

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • tra-pro.com
    • Series creator Keiko Takemiya's official website.
  • mediaarts-db.bunka.go.jp
  • mangapedia.com
    • Online manga database operated by the Japanese publishing companies Heibonsha (major encyclopedia publisher) and Shogakukan (major manga publisher).
  • listadomanga.es
    • Removed, reliability seemed dubious and info is supported by an alterate and exiting citation in the article.
  • mangaforever.net
    • Removed, reliability seemed dubious and info is supported by an alterate and exiting citation in the article.
  • konomanga.jp
    • Kono Manga ga Sugoi! is an annual ranked critic's list of manga, sourced from surveys of manga critics and published by the Japanese publishing house Takarajimasha. Its website also publishes industry news.
  • fukkan.com
    • Fukkan.com [ja] is a Japanese book publisher; citations support bibliographic information for books they have published referenced in the article.
      Is this cite correctly positioned, then? It ([93] in the current version) supports "During their research, they encounter Matthieu (マシュウ, Mashū), a descendant of the Cocteau family related to Gilbert", which doesn't look like bibliographic information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, you're correct that the Fukkan.com cite is describing plot info. Rationale for reliability is the same, as they are the publisher of the work that is being described.
  • cbr.com
    • Comic Book Resources is an American comic book industry news site. It is listed as a reliable source by the Comics and Webcomics Wikiprojects.
      Judging from those pages, it's established contributors and industry professionals that produce columns that are reliable sources; they don't say everything on the site is reliable. I tried finding a contributor page for Gramuglia but he's not listed here, for example. Per this he's published 1418 articles on the site, which is impressive but doesn't make him a reliable source. Does he have external credentials as an industry professional? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replaced it with the direct citation from the Berserk Official Guidebook, which is what the CBR article was referencing.
  • theanime.org
    • THEM Anime Reviews is a longstanding anime review website. It is listed as a reliable source by the Anime and Manga Wikiproject.
      See this page; Malerman appears to be only a minor contributor. If all pieces on the site go through editorial control I guess that's OK, since this is only being used to source what a review on that site says, but do we have evidence of editorial policy at the site? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the Anime and Manga Wikiproject, THEM has specific guidelines for accepting submissions with editorial oversight and published credentials/info on its writers and staff. My sense is similarly that the site does have editorial controls and isn't just a pure enthusiast outlet are accurate.
  • du9.org -- I see this one has a description that includes "a collective of readers who write reviews"
    • du9 [fr] is a French alternative comics magazine; I think the use of "collective" here is in the sense of "artist's collective".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking this up. Starting the review now, and will ping you when I've completed it. Morgan695 (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some strikes and replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mike Christie: Hi, full response above. Sorry, I glossed over your replies to a few source concerns. Apologies for pinging you early, addressing them now. Morgan695 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All points struck; this is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Link20XX edit

I gave the article a quick skim and it is very fascinating. The only thing I would suggest is to unlink Tokyo in the line "shared a rented house in Ōizumigakuenchō, Nerima, Tokyo, from 1971 to 1973." as per WP:OVERLINK, which states that major locations generally should not be linked and since the other two parts of the city are linked, linking this too seems to be a bit excessive. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: Unlinked. Morgan695 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support; nice work and a fascinating article. Link20XX (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie edit

  • I found it interesting that the two lead characters were both voiced by women. I don't know that it's worth mentioning in the article, but I'm curious if this is standard practice for adolescent boys in anime. It might be worth mentioning if women are often used for bishōnen in anime because of their androgynous appearance.
    • It is an interesting factoid, but it's not especially notable for male characters (especially boys) to be voiced by women in anime (see Shinji Ikari, Goku, Monkey D. Luffy, etc) so I don't think think it merits specific acknowledgement in the article.
  • "In September 1973 in Shūkan Shōjo Comic, Takemiya referenced her desire to write Kaze to Ki no Uta in a "one-page theater", a page in which an author discusses various miscellaneous thoughts and impressions with essay-like illustrations": it took me a moment to parse this. Not knowing what "one-page theater" is, I initially read this to mean that she wanted to write the story in a one-page theater. Plus I'm not crazy about "referenced", which is a little stilted. How about "Takemiya contributed a "one-page theater" (a page in which an author discusses various miscellaneous thoughts and impressions with essay-like illustrations) to Shūkan Shōjo Comic in September 1973, in which she described her desire to write Kaze to Ki no Uta"?
    • Done.
  • "staying in different countries for a period of one month": suggest "staying in different countries for a month each time".
    • Done.
  • "In an effort to increase the low level of editorial freedom and autonomy that was preventing her from publishing Kaze to Ki no Uta, Takemiya sought to build her profile as an artist by creating a manga series that would have mass appeal." I think "increase" is the wrong word; building her profile wouldn't increase editorial autonomy, it would increase an editor's ability to accept her work. How about "overcome" instead?
    • Done.
  • Do we know anything about how Rakuyō no Ki was accepted for inclusion in Pharaoh no Haka? That is, if it broke the same taboos that Kaze to Ki no Uta did, how was the editor persuaded to accept it? And if it didn't, was that because the editor required it to be sanitized?
    • Done.
  • "sounds as a base note": "bass note", surely? If this error is in the original, I think this needs a "[sic]".
    • Double checked source and "base note" is the quote. I think the usage is correct though, e.g. the base note of a perfume, but the use of "sounds" confuses it so I just removed the quote entirely and rephrased.
  • "The French setting of Kaze to Ki no Uta is reflective of Takemiya's own interest in European culture,[31] as reflective of a generalized fascination with Europe in Japanese girls' culture of the 1970s." If the repetition of "reflective" is a deliberate rhetorical device, I would call more attention to it with something "which is in turn reflective"; if not I would rephrase.
    • Done.
  • "Manga scholar Rebecca Suter notes how": "notes" implies in Wikipedia's voice that the statement is true; I think "asserts" or something similar would be better. You also have "Midori Matsui notes..." in the "Critical response" section, and several others. I don't know that all of them need to be changed -- "James Welker notes in his field work..." is reporting a finding, not an opinion, for example -- but I think some should.
    • Changed this instance and several others.
  • "(see Context above)": I don't think this is necessary. We don't have to write a section as if the reader is only reading that section, and the references to Hesse are laid out earlier in the article.
    • Removed.
  • "in the early 1980s by an all-female troupe modeled off of the Takarazuka Revue": "off of" would be wrong in British English -- I would write this as "modeled on" instead (or "modelled on"). To my partly Americanized ear it sounds wrong too, but perhaps it's OK in American English.
    • Done.
  • The second and third paragraphs of "Critical response" are structured as lists of opinions without any organization. This is the "A said B" issue described in WP:RECEPTION, and I think some restructuring is needed, though since the third paragraph is only about the film, and there are only two opinions, there may not be much you can do about that paragraph.
    • Did my best to reorganize the section; let me know if this is an improvement.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes all look good; the critical response paragraph is much more readable now -- those little narrativization tweaks really help. Re "base note", of course you're right it would have been fine to leave it as it was -- I knew the perfumery meaning but for some reason it didn't surface while I was reading that sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kaze_to_Ki_no_Uta/archive1&oldid=1097122572"