Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kaze to Ki no Uta/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Kaze to Ki no Uta edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Like its forerunner The Heart of Thomas (which I previously brought to FA after a very helpful peer review), Kaze to Ki no Uta is one of the most influential manga works of the 1970s, contributing significantly to the development of Japanese girls comics. I recently expanded this article significantly and brought it up to GA status, so I wanted to test the waters at peer review in advance of potentially bringing it to FAC.

Thanks, Morgan695 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments
  • I think you're correct, but the Dame aux Camélias image is so long and the Yoshikazu image is so close to the references that it creates some text/header placement issues when they're left-aligned. Morgan695 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your rationale. It is best to avoid any image/header conflict so this seems like the best placement to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be consistent with whether or not you are using the serial comma. In the lead, it is used here (themes of sadomasochism, incest, and rape), but not here (focused on politics, psychology and sexuality). You can pick either option, but it just has to be consistent.
  • Looks like the removal of the comma in the latter case was an IP edit, which I've reversed. Morgan695 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what I thought after reading more of the article. It seems like the serial comma was used through except for this instance. Thank you for clearing this up for me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this sentence: it took seven years from Takemiya's initial conceptualization of the story for her editors at the publishing company Shogakukan to agree to publish it. It is fairly nitpick-y so apologies in advance. The second "it" reads like it is referencing "Takemiya's initial conceptualization" and that of course was not published. Would something like "it took seven years from Takemiya's initial conceptualization of the story to its publication by Shogakukan" be more concise and avoid the second "it" altogether?
  • The wording you've provided is more concise, but I think it obfuscates the important point about Shogakukan not publishing it precisely because of its controversial subject material. It just sounds like Takemiya spent seven years developing the story, which is technically true, but isn't the full story of why the series took so long to be published. I'm open to other ways to phrase this section, though. Morgan695 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point. I am not entirely certain to be honest so I will leave this for other editors to discuss, either here or in the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a note about this part, commercial success, with Takemiya winning. I would avoid the sentence construct "with X y-ing". I have seen this note a lot in the FAC space so I would revise that out now before taking it to a FAC.
    • Is there a better way to phrase this? I would just say, "significant critical and commercial success, winning the 1979..." but it's complicated by the fact that Takemiya won the award for two separate titles. Morgan695 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not entirely certain at the moment. I just wanted to pass along a note that I have seen repeatedly in the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment for this sentence: It is regarded as a pioneering work of shōnen-ai, and is credited with widely popularizing the genre. I would clarify who is doing the regarding and crediting here. Is it critics, academics, etc.? Attribution would be helpful here as it is not immediately clear to me and it is open to interpretation at the moment.
  • This is another nitpick-y point so apologies in advance. For this part (Serge's efforts to befriend his roommate, and Gilbert's efforts to simultaneously drive away and seduce Serge,), I do not think the commas are necessary.
    • I've kept them for now, since without the commas it becomes a very long run-on. Morgan695 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable. It is not a huge point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Synopsis" section, the last sentence of the second paragraph does repeat Gilbert and Auguste twice. I am not sure if there is any way to avoid that since they are both men and repetition may be necessary to avoid unnecessary confusion, but it was something that I noticed while reading through this part so I still wanted to bring it up.
  • For this part, (his new roommate Serge, and rejects Serge's early attempts), I believe you could replace the second instance of Serge with "his" and it would be understood from context.
  • I have a clarification question, but do we know what happens to Auguste? His character section ends with a sentence about him wanting to separate Serge and Gilbert and I was curious if there was more closure to his storyline.
    • He is unsuccessful in doing so (they escape to Paris), but what becomes of him after that is I believe left unresolved. Morgan695 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what I thought, but I wanted to double-check with this. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the most part, the character's first names are used (i.e. Auguste, Gilbert, Serge, etc.), but Arion Rosemarine is referenced by his last name. I would instead change it to his first name to keep with the consistency already established.
  • I have a question about this part (and issues of Barazoku, the first commercially-circulated Japanese gay men's magazine). Did the publishers of this magazine identify this as a "gay men's magazine"? I'm only asking because from my experience, it is important to use the terminology that would have been used the creators and their overall culture. This is why (at least from my understanding) phrases like "male-male romance" are used in the literature about yaoi. It would be nice to get further clarification on this.
  • Yup, Barazoku was very much a gay men's publication. Unlike yaoi magazines, which are not necessarily accurately described as "gay" for the reason you've described, Barazoku was very much an effort by gay men for a gay male audience. Morgan695 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the confirmation. I just wanted to make sure as this has been something I have seen in my experience and in articles. It makes sense as the magazine was published in the 70's. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to carve out some time to help with this. A majority of my comments are up to the "Development" section, except for one which is later on. I hope that these comments are helpful and inspire other editors to look through the article. Once my comments are addressed, would you prefer that I collapse them or move them to the talk page? I only ask because I believe the collapse template is no longer permitted on the FAC page and I want to know your preference in general. Aoba47 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Full response above. You can post any additional comments in whatever format works best for you. Morgan695 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. I have collapsed my comments so they are easily visible to you and future reviewers who may interested in them. I will come back to this peer review next week if that is alright with you. Apologies for the delay. I just have work this weekend so I do not have a lot of free time over these next few days. Best of luck with the peer review. If I have not posted anything by this time next week, feel free to ping me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part: Takemiya travelled to Europe. From my understanding, "travelled" is the British spelling while "traveled" is the US spelling. Which variety of English is used in the article?
  • The last sentence of the "Production" subsection is quite long. It has a lot of great information, but it is quite dense. I think it would be beneficial to have the quote be in its own sentence.
  • For this part, novels of Herman Hesse (see Context above), I am not sure the parenthetical is necessary. I am not used to Wikipedia having this kind of language though so take this with a grain of salt as it could just be something I am not familiar with already.
    • I used it in The Heart of Thomas (under Reception and legacy), so I think that kind of internal referencing is permitted. Morgan695 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the response. If it was fine for that article, it should be okay here. Again, it is just something that I am likely unfamiliar with on Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment for this part: Roughly 4.9 million copies of collected volumes of Kaze to Ki no Uta are in print. I believe a "as of X year" would be necessary as I would imagine that this manga is still being published in various forms.
    • This came up in the GAR as well, and sadly the source does not specify a year. Morgan695 (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the citation for this part, as a "second rate imitation", after The Heart of Thomas as it awkwardly cuts up the sentence and hinders the readability by separating what this was accused of being an imitation of.
  • For this part, In an interview with the BBC, Takemiya responded, I think it would be beneficial to include the year that the interview took place in the prose for further clarity. I think this would be helpful as the year 2010 was specifically mentioned in the prose for the same paragraph.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Adaptations and related media" section, there is quite a bit of passive voice. I think it would be beneficial to change at least one of these instances to active voice to make the prose more engaging.
  • I was honestly unaware of Kami no Kohitsuji. Do you think it could potentially be notable enough for its own article? If not, then I think it could use more information (although keep it brief of course), specifically about its story and reception.
    • I honestly don't know enough about Kami no Kohitsuji to make a judgement about whether it merits its own article. I don't know if there's Wikipedia policy around this, but my general sense is that a sequel to a work produced largely without the input of the original creator merits no more than a fleeting mention in the article on the originating work. Morgan695 (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are some things I noticed in the remainder of the article, but I will do a more thorough reading next week. I hope these comments are helpful and let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just so you know this should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed above, I will collapse my comments. I would not want my comments to deter any potential reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think I've addressed all of your comments. Morgan695 (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kaze_to_Ki_no_Uta/archive1&oldid=1080819825"