Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Thank you for nominating this article for good article review. I have assessed it against the six good article criteria, and commented in detail below:

1. Writing

(a) Prose

This is generally very good; though I spotted a few things.

Lead: Why is "reclaim it" in quotes? Is this a direct quotation, or intended to indicate that the aliens have a prior claim on the planet? If the former, though it's a bit short for a quote, it should have an explicit citation. If the latter (which I suspect is more likely), only "reclaim" needs to be in quotes.
Lead: The sentence "4Kids Entertainment was unable to license the remaining 26 episodes, needed to complete broadcasting the entire series, nor released the series to home video." could do with rewording for grammar and clarity.
~~There are a number of Japanese terms (shōjo, manga, tankōbon etc) that, although they are linked, might benefit from a brief explanation. Also, is manga singular or plural (or both)?~~ Dealt with in reply below.
Plot: Can the phrase "...with her crush" be expressed less idiomatically? Put 'crush' in single quotes as a colloquialism that may be unfamiliar to all English speakers.
~~What does the phrase "...powerful heroic animal" mean? How can an animal be "heroic"?~~
Manga: "The first volume of the man series..." I assume this is a typo - should "man" be "main" or "manga"? (I would have corrected it myself if I was sure!)
Manga: Some of the tenses in this section confused me a little - where the text states "the series is licensed for release in X", it seems to imply it has not yet been released there. Is this the intent?

(b) Manual of style

~~Words like shōjo, manga, tankōbon etc (as "foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English" per the WP:MOS) should probably be italicised.~~ Addressed
Reception: This section cites Patrick King twice, once with AnimeFringe and then with Animefringe. The rendering should be consistent.
To be honest, I'm not convinced the external links section adds anything to the article. External links should be restricted to "a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." (from WP:LINKS). The ToykyoPOP ones seem to be trying to sell the manga, some aren't in English (hence not accessible), and everything on the other sites seems to be well covered already, either by this article or those wikilinked from it. Struck, per discussion below.

2. Sourcing

(a) References

I'm a bit concerned that some of the sources used may not meet WP:RS. There seem to be quite a few that resemble blogs, forums etc, with no way to establish if they are fact-checked and peer-reviewed (and in some cases, eg uk-tv-guide.com, no author or publisher information is available on the site). Having said that, I appreciate that this type of subject might be difficult to source elsewhere.
~~Reference 59 ("Forum Buzz: Tokyo Mew Mew licensed by 4Kids") doesn't seem to go where it should. I didn't follow up all the refs, but if there's one misdirected link, there may be more.~~

(b) In-line citations

Reception: "The anime adaptation has been described as a "fun and entertaining" show for kids." Who by? This quote needs explicitly citing (but also see my comment regarding this under 4 below).
Reception: "Reviewers regularly compare it to Sailor Moon..." I don't think the single citation given is enough to back up this assertion.

(c) Original research

Reception: Why was releasing the 4Kids dub, rather than the original Japanese version, an "unusual move"? If it's described this way in the sources, it needs citing - otherwise it comes over as editor commentary.

3. Broadness

(a) Topic coverage

Production: Is it possible to give dates to pin down some of the events mentioned? For example, when Mia Ikumi began work on the manga, and the release of the first volume and associated Golden Week holiday festival. Even if it's just the years, it would be helpful.
Anime: Do we know why 4Kids was unable to acquire the remainder the series?
Video games: This section would benefit from more detail, since it has no parent article. For example, are there any reviews that could be quoted? How were they received by gamers? Were they released outside Japan?
CDs: The same questions as the above comment re Video games - a bit more detail would help to put some flesh on the bones ;)

(b) Focus

No concerns here.

4. Neutrality

Reception: "The anime adaptation has been described as a "fun and entertaining" show for kids." In full, the reviewer says "Terrific for young kids and magic girl/shoujo fangirls. Anybody else might want to pass this one by." Quoting the entire summary might be more balanced.

5. Stablility

No concerns here.

6. Images

(a) Copyright status

(b) Relevance and captioning

Licensing and captions look good. No concerns here.

As a result of the above review, I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period will be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 reply: Fixed 1a, items 1 & 2. Shōjo, manga, tankōbon are always just written as is in all anime/manga titles, without additional further explanation. Manga is singular and plural. For 1a4, I'm not sure of another way to word it. Crush is the term they use in the volume summaries as well. Any ideas? Fixed heroric animal (missed that one getting in there :P) Fixed the first manga item. For the second, "it is licensed" because the license is current. I reworded some the Carlsen better clarify both licensing and releasing (a company may license and not release, or only partially release). For the other two, its unclear if they have been released as no sources have been found showing a release date for any volumes, only the licensing.

1b - fixed most of the italicized. It is something only recently caught in anime and manga articles, so we are still catching up. However, manga and anime are both considered common place enough not to be italicized (and they are used with the English meanings here, not the Japanese). Fixed the AnimeFringe inconsistenct. For the external links, these are standard links per our MoS - all official Japanese and English websites, and ANN links (the anime/manga equivalent of IMDB). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2 reply: Please point out specific sources that do not appear to meet WP:RS. I can't spot any that are not? (uk-tv-guide.com is the UK equivalent of TV Guide so it doesn't have author info for its television listings). For the forum buzz, yeah, AoD got bought by Mania.com and so a lot of their links are borked. I linked to an archive version to fix that. I removed the "fun and entertaining" as I can't find it now. I fixed the Sailor Moon note and hopefully have fixed the issue with the "unusual move". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3 reply: Unfortunately no as the source does not give any specific dates. There were hints that Studio Pierrot refused to license the rest to them because of the way they edited the first half, but no reliable sources are available to confirm/deny this. For both the Video Games and the CDs, unfortunately the answer is no on both. None were ever licensed, so whats there now is all we could find in any reliable sources about either, after days of scouring Japanese websites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4: addressed in section 2:) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I've been through and struck those points I feel have been satisfactorily addressed (either in the article or by your explanations). To expand on the remaining few:

External links. I accept that sites like ANN are about as good as anything else online for this sort of material, and there's an argument for retaining the Japanese sites too, but I think even with a broad interpretation of WP:LINKS, the chuangyi.com one is iffy. Unlike Tokyopop, which only links to amazon, this site sells the manga directly - it's only two clicks from the linked page to the shopping basket - and the content is duplicated in elsewhere. From WP:LINKSTOAVOID, we should not link to a site "...that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", and the longer the section gets, the stricter the application of the criteria should be. This may be an issue that WP:ANIME needs to look at as a WikiProject if the in-house MoS encourages such links. However, for the purpose of the GA assessment, if chuangyi.com can be removed I'll drop my objection ;)
Sourcing. The sources I had in mind were the aforementioned uk-tv-guide.com (which contains no information about who owns the site, provides the information etc), and some of the reviews. It's not clear whether the reviews are written by 'professional' in-house reviewers or are similar in nature to blog or forum postings - ie, just someone's unschooled opinion. I'm happy to take your word on that though ;)
Some dates in the Production section would be nice - just something like "Mia Ikumi spent a year designing the Tokyo Mew Mew manga before the release of the first volume in YYYY". A date reference for the Golden Week holiday would also be helpful.

All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chuang Yi site does sell the manga directly, but it is also the publisher of the English release in Singapore. As such, it is an official site, and the best source for the manga being published and completed by them. The EL can be removed, but then we'd have to look at removing most of the Japanese official sties as well, as almost all of them also sell directly. ;) The reviews are all considered RS from previous discussion in various FAs, PRs, and in the project. AoD and ANN are two of the top English anime and manga sites, with both having industry support (AoD is actually owned by Mania.com now). Animefringe was a well established online anime magazine, with paid staff. Though it no longer releases new issues, they have kept up their backissues for folks to still read. I can see the UK one being iffy because of the lack of info, and I'll see if I can find some other similar site to use. UK needs better TV guide sites...I had trouble finding that kind of thing for Meerkat Manor too *grin* Dates added...don't know why didn't think to do that first :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going well so far - in the light of what you've said, I'll drop my external links objections for this assessment (it's not my intention to change accepted usage unilaterally, but it may be worth discussing further at WP:ANIME!). One small thing I noticed when re-reading just now: the article is inconsistent in using both spaced endashes and emdashes (which are currently spaced too, but should be unspaced). Normally I'd do these minor tweaks myself, but since both the spaced endash and unspaced emdash are permitted by the MoS, it's your call ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :) I think I got the dashes all fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it to me too. I think that'll do - the uktvguide source is perhaps one to improve on in the future, but I believe we've got enough for GA now. Nice job ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

Congratulations on your excellent work on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Tokyo Mew Mew as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page.

For improvement in the future, the uk-tv-guide.com source could be replaced with a better source per the comments above, and information on the reception of the video game spin-offs would be useful (if anything ever comes to light!)

Well done ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]