Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School Rumble/archive2

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010 [1].

School Rumble edit

Nominator(s): 陣内 _Jinnai 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have finished resolving any issues from the previous FAC (that I could tell). To the 2 sources that were not given reasons (ComiPress & Digital-Sat), the former is a of anime and manga news site that republishes information relating to the mediums. Per WP:ENGLISH the use in this article is to make the listing, originally in Japanese, more accessible to those who cannot speak it. While originally it was a mix of editorial and user posts, since 2006 its split and the site listed is the official news site. For the latter, that is the website for an Italian online magazine on digital TV that that has existed for a decade. On the other issue, I have replaced the screenshot with a short clip which meets WP:FAIRUSE and also given direct, sourced, commentary relating to it and why its use would be needed, in addition to text, that neither text nor text and a screenshot alone could show, part of which is linked to another wiki article in the text and caption.

~~Note: I will be away from my usual computer throughout the holidays, but should be able to respond within a reasonable time, especially after Sunday.~~陣内 _Jinnai 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No dabs, and external links and alts look good.
Minor (to me): After I replaced a hyphen with a dash in the References, I noticed a bunch of time ranges use hyphens, date ranges use spaced en dashes, and prose uses em dashes. I tried a script, but the resulting diff didn't look like it would catch much (or fix them to one style as I hoped), so I leave any dash or hyphen fixes to others.
- Not quite sure i understand this. Are you saying the prose uses different formats for its dates? that the prose and the refs do? I know there are a few em dashes in the prose, but those should all be appropriatly placed.陣内_Jinnai 18:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, the dash stuff is minor to me. There's nothing wrong with using a different date format for the prose than the refs, as long as the two are consistent. --an odd name 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check that each ref is used only once for each statement (I removed a dupe). Check also for missing words (I added one)—you don't want to accidentally a source.
- I will have to wait to do a thorough check on that given the size of the article, the number of refs and the speed of my relative's computer till i get back unless any of them come out as inneduatky sspicious.陣内 _Jinnai 04:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good video btw. It helps illustrate the Initial D reference far better than the old image, and I think (esp. with the text commentary) it easily meets the non-free crits. (added on 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

--an odd name 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the absence of the games from the animanga infobox intentional? I also noticed that it's not categorized under Category:2005 video games and Category:2006 video games. --Remy Suen (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of games from the infobox is intentional; such items are commonly produced for even remotly successful anime and the games are otherwise of little note. Furthermore it was never intended to have a game posted for an anime unless it was based originally on a game, like Air (visual novel) or it has concurrent release like .hack.

As for the categories, I can add those later when i am at a better pc.陣内 _Jinnai 23:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2005/2006 video game categories added.陣内 _Jinnai 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a. It's pretty good, but the prose is flat in many places. What should be an interesting topic to read about was difficult to get through for me. I'd recommend getting a fresh pair of eyes on it to pep it up and introduce some variety in the writing. The plot section is one of the worst offenders, but the droning lists of languages, release dates, formats, and so on could use a touch-up as well. Not a ton of work, but needs refreshing.
- Essentially naming off a list of releases and dates or formats is dull. Ex. the second paragraph of the lead, and the first paragraph of the Manga heading. Let's find a fresh and interesting way to write about this.
  - ~~I'm attempting to find some other copyeditors at the moment.~~ The article has been copyedited by a second copyeditor.
- ~~It's somewhat overlinked—please don't link common dicdef terms like "puns", "eccentric", and so on. Some terms are linked multiple times, like "protagonist".~~
  - I removed some of the links. The remaining ones are duplicated from the lead and the ~~prose~~body. I am leaving pun linkage because it is a core concept around which the manga revolves around (along with a few other types of humor) and as such it is reasonable to link to that one. If you want me to remove the ones linked in the lead that are also linked in the body, just let me know.
- In the lead you write "Unlike other Del Rey releases, the English translation retains the naming order of the Japanese original to preserve puns based on the characters' names." Later, you write "Del Rey also retained the Japanese naming order to preserve the series' humor." The source supports the fact that Del Rey is doing this and why, but neither your main body prose nor the source support the "unlike other Del Rey releases" phrase. Please make sure that what you write in the lead is reflected in the main body, and that the source supports it.
  - Removed the part about "unlike" in the lead.
    - Great thanks. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would not strike comments that I make. I will strike comments as appropriate when I feel they have been addressed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The laundry list of citations after some statements are ugly and undesirable. If you say something was translated in n languages, can we just cite one source that lists the languages rather than citing every primary source where that language is available?
  - Sorry none of the sources really say that. I can cut down the list if you want, but there is no source that says SR was translated into multiple languages.
    - It's not a huge deal. It's just visually unappealing to me and creates the appearance that it's a controversial statement that requires a number of citations. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well a lot of them were leftovers from when the infoboxes listed non-English/non-Japanese publishers. So each one was basically verify that either it was licensed for DVD release or shown on a network in another language.陣内 _Jinnai 07:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.