Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a fansite. There's no need to add section of about all his abilties or personality traits, or it will be wp:fancruft. Part II is actually from the same manga, while anime appearances are actually the same as the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Characters like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond (character), FA Batman also have these sections. Besides a copyedit, the article also needs to clarify the sources: Part I, Part II in the article text: are you referring manga/anime etc. You are free to ask for reassessment. All the best. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The series' primary media is the manga, that's why all sources are from the manga volumes, while the anime adapts them.

So you say that adding in-universe information will make the article better? I still don't see how would adding details like "Naruto makes all his clones launch each other in one attack, or that the Rasengan can only be made with Naruto's clones" be important to the general reader. If I were to follow other stuff, how GAs Samus Aran, Lara Croft and Cloud Strife avoid using these types of subsections. You also pointed few sentences that I was going to try fixing, but did the nomination automatically fail due to the lack of in-universe sections?Tintor2 (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The sections are not the only reason of a fail. The language and inadequate clarity of jargon like Part II, chakra is also a major reason of fail. Thus, it needed a rewrite in this aspect too. If you think that the article can be a GA as it is. Please approach GA reassessment. Thanks.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That was what I was going to do as you noted in the issues, but you still claim that the article needs to follow Wikia standards with new sections, which I fail understand why having wp:plot and wp:fancruft in mind.Tintor2 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose
All the points in section 1a have been addressed, except for the following (quotes taken from this version):
 * "Kishimoto is glad that his character has blond hair and blue eyes; it has become so common worldwide ever since Naruto's debut that it is utterly unquestionable whether or not the main protagonist is purely Japanese due to his appearance, therefore Naruto, along with the immense popularity it has gained, comes naturally to the readers and international audiences with blond hair and blue eyes."
 * I would have tried to re-cast the sentence, but I wasn't sure what it was getting at. Something to do with cross-cultural appeal, or diversity? Or merely that it's too late now to give Naruto brown eyes and black hair, even if Kishimoto wanted to? Anyway, the first clause is not cited—I was tempted to just delete the whole thing.
 * He refers to Naruto's popularity across international readers and the questioning whether or not he was Japanese considering his hair and eyes.


 * "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version ..." From the beginning of the series/throughout the series??
 * Replaced with "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version".
 * Someone who has seen the series will have to address this.


 * The article does not say what Part II is, where referred first time in " Naruto become a central conflict in Part II" No mention that they are manga.
 * I'm with Redtigerxyz on this. I had to infer the distinction between Part I and Part II based on context clues. I think this should be spelled out unambiguously in the lead, along with what TV shows and movies he has appeared in, and how they are related to each other. Just a couple sentences would really clear things up, but I think someone with more Naruto knowledge should do it.


 * Added to the lead.

It seems reasonably clear and concise to me, but I've read the article a bunch of times now. Someone else may want to give it a quick speed read just to make sure I'm not imagining it. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes and copyedits.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)