Talk:Submarine 707

Discuss
Discussions welcome. I'm putting in some stub info. I'll have to rewatch the 2 episodes to write the synopsis. Any one else have comments or additional info are welcome. -- Kschang77 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of Universe
Hi. You asked for feedback on the anime project talk page, so here I am. As pointed out there, the primary focus on articles about fiction should be out of universe information. The in-unsiverse info should be there only to provide a background to the reader, so he knows what kind of work we're talking about. As an example, you could add in the lead: date of release, time taken for production, director, writer, producer, studio, theme and genre. You could have a section describing the different influences of the authors, and another one for the reception the public and the critics gave it. Your analysis of the tech aspects is good, even if not perfectly worded (if there are so many flaws, it is not as technically perfect as you say; and "sacrilege" is a personal point of view.) However, all these statements should be sourced to a reliable source to be admissible on wikipedia.

I hope I'm not being too hard. It can seem discouraging in the beginning, but it all adds up easily once you get yourself into it. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have questions or if you need help. My first advice would be to expand the article a bit more, and then start looking for sources. Keep up the good work!!--SidiLemine 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

707R
I've also heard this called "707 Revolution". Is either acceptable? Dictabeard (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC) ="Reality vs. Anime" Section= The entire section reads like someone with too much time on their hands and an axe to grind; Further, it’s a damned cartoon. It’s not like lives actually depend on the “science.” I could put together a perfect valid counter-argument that proves the science in the show correct (sample: “vertical launch torpedoes”, “intermediate designs”). Finally, should the studio that produces this find out about these comments, they’d have very good grounds for action against Wikipedia (I hope they do) and any an all authors on this page (myself included).174.25.16.197 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON


 * Removed as original research. Analysts like this, along with reviews, must be attributed to reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)