Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revolutionary Girl Utena/archive1

Revolutionary Girl Utena

 * Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Born from its creator's discontent over his lack of creative freedom as a director of Sailor Moon, Revolutionary Girl Utena is a defining work of 1990s anime. Whenever I try to sell Utena to someone (particularly someone that might be skeptical of anime), I describe it as a sort of cousin to Twin Peaks – much like that series outwardly resembles a standard network detective show but ultimately tells a story that is much more surreal and impressionistic, Utena uses the trappings and aesthetics of '90s girls' anime to tell an avant-garde coming-of-age story influenced by experimental Japanese theater and the works of Hermann Hesse.

I expanded this article significantly in February, and brought it to GA that same month. I then took the article to peer review, where it unfortunately did not get any feedback; nevertheless, I'm nominating it here because I believe the article meets requirements and is comparable in its scope and depth to the previous manga/anime articles I've taken to FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Aoba47

 * For this part in the lead, (and has received numerous accolades. The series has received particular praise for its treatment of LGBT themes and subject material), I would avoid using "has received" twice in such close proximity.
 * Rephrased. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not read the full article so apologies in advance if this is already addressed. To the best of my understanding, after reading the lead, the manga adaptation was created during the anime's development, but the manga came out roughly a year before the anime's release? Is this further addressed in the article? The timeline just seems odd to me, specifically having an adaptation (the manga) coming out before the original product (the anime).
 * Your understanding is correct: the animated series is the originating work from which the manga is adapted, though as animation has much longer production times than manga, the manga ended up beginning serialization before the original broadcast run of the television series. The article talks in more detail about the production of the manga in "Manga" under "Related media". Morgan695 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The source link for File:Revolutionary Girl Utena logo 20170127.svg leads to an error message for me. I would also avoid having a bare link in the source parameter and I would include the title of the website there instead to give a fuller picture to readers of what the link leads to prior to clicking on it.
 * Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox says the manga is partially aimed at a josei audience, but when I do a search through the article, josei does not appear anywhere else. Do you have a citation to support this categorization?
 * The demographic category of a manga series always corresponds to the demographic category of the magazine it is published in: the original manga and the Adolescence of Utena manga were respectively published in Ciao and Bessatsu Shōjo Comic Special, which are shōjo magazines, while After the Revolution was published in Flowers, which is a josei magazine. Obviously not a perfect 1:1 comparison since I imagine more people are familiar with sports than they are with manga, but in-context it's a bit of a WP:NOTBLUE situation in that the demographic categories of these manga magazines are unambiguous and self-evident in the same way you wouldn't need a cite to verify that Sports Illustrated is a sports magazine. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation, and I agree with you completely on this. I made this comment prior to reading the article as a whole, and once I got the the parts on the manga's run in magazines, this became clear to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies again if this is really obvious. I just have a quick clarification question about the "Plot" section. Is this story set in the "real world" (for lack of better words) or is it set in some sort of fantasy world or alternative place? I was just curious because when I read the beginning of the "Plot" section and got to the part on "a traveling prince", I felt uncertain about where this story was set, both in terms of time and place.
 * It definitely leans more towards "fantasy world or alternative place". To go back to the Twin Peaks analogy, both Ohtori Academy and the town of Twin Peaks are clearly surreal and supernatural settings, but the exact nature of that surreality is never quite explicated, and isn't really the point of the story in the first place. Part of my concern writing the plot summary was that I didn't want to be too prescriptive in summarizing a story that hangs much of its narrative on allegory and symbolism, which understandably might inhibit the clarity of the summary, but I think is necessary to avoid foisting a POV onto a piece of media that by design is abstract and subjective. Morgan695 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I will not push this further and I will respect whatever direction a consensus goes on the matter. I do not see defining the setting of a story (even in a more allegorical narrative) as pushing a POV. I just think that it would provide readers, particularly unfamiliar ones like myself, with a fuller and more complete summary, especially since this story is set in a more world more outside of the norm.
 * If citations do describe the setting, I would not see any issue with explicitly saying that it is taking place is some sort of fantasy world. I think even answering basic questions on where Ohtori Academy is located would be something. To go with your Twin Peaks example, the article clearly locates it in a state (Washington), while I am guessing that Ohtori Academy is in Japan, but having that clarified would be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll review my notes and see if I can clarify the setting in the plot summary. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies again for being a pain. It is a nitpick-y point on my part so it will not be something that holds up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is "engaged" put in quotation marks in the plot summary?
 * Similar to my rationale above about "engaged" in this context being at least partially allegorical. I've rephrased the section in question. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been a while since I have studied Japanese (even though I keep saying I'll return to it) so sorry again if this is obvious or it is not phrased entirely correctly. When Utena Tenjou and Anthy Himemiya are discussed, their first names are used, but for Souji Mikage, the plot summary uses Mikage instead of Souji. I would be consistent with one way or the other.
 * This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME conflicts with consistency; Souji Mikage is referred to more or less exclusively as "Mikage" and never as "Souji" within the text of the work itself. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. It is best to go with the names that are primarily uses in the work itself as those would be the names primarily used in discussions on the work (whether in official coverage or by fans). Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The link here (stabs Utena through the back) seems unnecessary in my opinion. It is an easily understood concept to a majority if not all readers, plus it just redirects to the general betrayal article anyway which further reduces its purpose.
 * Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think bildungsroman needs to be capitalized.
 * Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain of this use of "while" in this part (while director Kunihiko Ikuhara stated that he developed the cast of Utena using the self-described principle of "never give a character only one personality"). The word "while" is often used to suggest a contrast, and it just appears that Yōji Enokido and Kunihiko Ikuhara are discussing separate points on character development so a different word choice would be better in my opinion.
 * Revised. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Anime should be linked in the "Characters" section as it is the first time it is brought up in the article. If it is linked later in the article, it should be unlinked.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To tie into the above point, I am confused by the linking in the article. There are instances where items are linked repeatedly, such as with manga. Is there a reason for this choice?
 * Can you cite specific instances? "Manga" should be linked once in the body and then never again (which should be corrected now), but there were some cases where I re-linked to subjects where they are discussed substantially in the section; e.g. I re-link to J. A. Seazer under "Soundtrack and music" because that section substantially discusses his contribution to the series, and the first mention of him in the article body is just an incidental reference. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bildungsroman is linked a few times in the article as well as Hermann Hesse and Demian. I believe those are the only instances of this though. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bildungsroman, Hermann Hesse, and Demian are now only linked in their first usages and again under "Coming-of-age", where they are discussed substantially. Morgan695 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

These comments are up to the "Development" section. I will continue my review once my above comments have been addressed. I hope this is helpful. I know absolutely nothing about this and have not seen or read anything outside of this article so I am enjoying going through it. But, to continue off a point I have made above, I find myself struggling to picture this story as I am not sure the time and place it is set in. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded to your comments with the exception of the note about the setting. I'm looking into improving it now, but the setting of the series is somewhat intentionally confounding; while Ohtori Academy resembles a contemporary Japanese boarding school, the series' focus on concepts like dueling tournaments, travelling princes, and chivalric romance certainly evokes an image of the European middle ages. (Or so goes my favorite J. A. Seazer song from the series, at least.) But your point is well-made, and I think the section can be clearer without being prescriptive about the allegorical material of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and for responding to my points. That sounds fair to me. When I read the article, I got the impression that the setting was more on the vague side so the article does represent that well at least in my opinion. From the sounds of it, it seems like the story sets up the boarding school as its own little world so keeping the focus on the school may be best. I did a very brief Google search and saw a mention of a "Houou City", but I could only find that in a Wiki so I am doubtful of it. Thank you for again for understanding and apologies again for being a pain about this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a question about the note for the quote "a romantic action show". The note specifies the genre is tied to romance fiction and romanticism, but this seems obvious to me in the prose alone. Would the reader confuse this with something else to the point that a note like this is necessary?
 * If it's obvious in the prose I have no problem removing it. Morgan695 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For this part, (the 1973 film adaptation of The Three Musketeers), I think it would be best to tweak the linking slightly to the 1973 film adaptation of The Three Musketeers. I recommend this to better match the links with the prose.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a comment for this part, (with Saito advocating for the original romantic concept for the series over Ikuhara's new, more esoteric vision). I would avoid using the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as it is a note that I have seen rather repeatedly in multiple FAC reviews. I do not have strong opinions about it, but it seems to be something that is best avoided in FA writing. Another example of this is (with Ikuhara and Mitsumune participating on some choruses). Feel free to disagree by the way on this point.
 * I'll leave it for now, and see if it comes up in the comments of other editors. Morgan695 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As I have said above, I do not not have strong feelings about this. I have seen someone explain why this kind of structure is not an example of great writing, but I honestly cannot remember their rationale for it and if I was not already aware of this from prior FACs, it is not something that I would really point out or find particularly notable. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the "Style" subsection, there is a sentence with four citations, and I was wondering if it would be possible to bundle them to avoid potential claims of citational overkill?
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is more of a clarification question. Were there any reviews for some of these adaptations such as the stage ones, the light novels, or the video game? It is obviously important to be mindful of the article's length, and I already think that the discussion around these adaptations are very well-handled. I still wanted to ask anyway.
 * Not really. They're relatively minor media in the context of the broader series, and would probably be UNDUE if included. Morgan695 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I got that vibe from the article. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This part, (As a bishōjo, Kotani argues), seems off as it could be read that Kotani is being described as a bishōjo.
 * Rephrased. Morgan695 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain about this sentence: (New York listed the car transformation scene in Adolescence of Utena on its list of "The 100 Sequences That Shaped Animation" in 2022.) It is so tied to the film that I think it would be best left to that article, and I am not sure if it really fits here. I only point this out because this is the first time the car transformation scene is mentioned in this article (unless I missed a prior mention), but it gets much more focus in the film article.
 * Removed. Morgan695 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Titles such as Revolutionary Girl Utena should be italicized in the citation tiles to meet WP:CONFORMTITLE.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This should be the full extent of my review. Just to be clear, I am focusing primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC as always. As always you have done excellent work here and my quotes above are mostly nitpicks. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your responses and for your patience with my review. I will revisit the article tomorrow to read through everything again. I doubt I will find anything to add here, but again, I just want to make sure I am as thorough as possible as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If you would prefer that I collapse my comments or move them to the talk page, feel free to let me know. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Source review from PanagiotisZois
Man, I haven't seen Utena in almost 10 years. It actually was the 4th anime I consciously watched, once I realized what anime even were. I loved reading through the article and learning more about the series, and it's definitely made me want to rewatch it. Anyway, for now, I can only offer a source review, primarily in terms of formatting and whatnot. I understand that the FAC guidelines require sources to be reliable and high-quality. Personally, I found all sources to be reliable and relatively high-quality. I might leave this part however to more experienced editors, in case we disagree on what constitutes as "high-quality". Aside from that, here are my comments. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * With most sources that originate from books, including #1, you have the book cited in the "Bibliography" section and use the {sfn} template. However, with source #2 which also is a book, you don't list that in the appropriate section, or which page describes Utena as "surrealist".
 * I only have access to the ePub version of Anime Impact, which does not have page numbers. I've noted that it's the eBook edition, moved the citation to Bibliography, and indicated that the "Revolutionary Girl Utena" section of the book is where the relevant info is being pulled from. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Revolutionary Girl Utena: 20th Anniversary Ultra Edition", is it possible to specify each time you cite the source, which page you're referring to? Pages 76–105 is a quite significant page number. If for whatever reason this is impossible - maybe you don't have direct access to it - I guess it can be left as is.
 * Yes, this is a source where I only have access to the raw text of the section (which is not denoted with page numbers) and not the actual book itself. Not ideal, but hopefully not dealbreaking for a source review. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * With source #4, link the Newtype magazine.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding source #42, don't forget to link Anime News Network. Also, don't use allcaps.
 * Also in sources #58-59, #74, #76-77, #79-80, #82-84, #87-88.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Concerning source #56, link CBR.
 * Also in #114.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Source #64 should probably be in the "Bibliography" section.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In sources #72 & 72, there's no need to have "Box" all in uppercase.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In source #75, link CPM.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In source #78, link ICv2. Only the v is lowercase.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All right. Most comments have been addressed. Regarding the first two points, I would say that the lack of page numbers can be excused. Based on this, the article passes the source review where it concerns formatting and consistency. I will look about checking to see whether the things being stated in the article are actually present within the sources at another time. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the bibliography, most sources appear to be from journals that are peer-reviewed, or anime-related magazines that have existed for decades, or books from reputable publishers / authors. However, I do have some statements to be made here. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The video from New York Comic Con probably shouldn't be listedn in the Bibliography, as it's not a literary source but a video one.
 * This is mostly so I can use {sfn} to mark timestamps; is there a better format for this type of cite? Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a very clever idea. Can't believe I missed it. No, that's a great way of doing it. Leave it as such. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find much info on Mango Media. Are they a reputable publisher, or at least the two listed authors?
 * One of the editors is Chris Stuckmann, who per his cited Wikipedia page seems to be fairly reputable - approved critic on Rotten Tomatoes, member of the Critics Choice Association, etc. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the online sources, I'm aware that ANN is recognized as kind of an expert on anime-related stuff, and I've seen articles from there be used in various other anime/manga-related pages that are featured articles. Same goes for websites like CBR. However:
 * What makes Pen-Online, Paste magazine, Collider, or SlashFilm high-quality, reliable sources?
 * Pen (magazine) is a Japanese lifestyle magazine that has been published since 1997, and is published by the same company that publishes that Japanese editions of Madame Figaro and Newsweek. Paste is a long-running American arts and culture magazine that I believe regarded fairly uncontroversially as reliable. Collider and SlashFilm seem to trend towards looser enthusiast-style coverage, but I think are situationally reliable in the incidental context in which they're being used in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All right. Taking the above into account, as well as the statements the sources support, I'd say the article also passes the source review in terms of reliability & quality. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Tintor2

 * Sorry for not commenting but I hope this review becomes active enough. Everything looks good but I'd suggest removing the quote boxes as the material chosen might come across a biased. Had a similar issue the To Your Eternity review as well as some Resident Evil.
 * I'll leave them for now and see if they come up as a point of contestation from other reviewers. I could see an argument for having a quote under "Reception and influence" being a POV issue, but I think the other quotes are fairly uncontroversial and add context to their sections. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The plot section could explain what parts of each paragraph are the three arcs if they are worth mentioning.
 * I think I'll keep it as-is to avoid the overuse of subheads.. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The releases section should used before any other adaptation since it's the primary media (Right?)
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Themes and analysis could be moved to production or reception if they are backed up by the anime stuff or third party sources.
 * I think that would just end up bloating those two sections; best to keep them in their own section (as has been done for The Heart of Thomas, Kaze to Ki no Uta, Banana Fish, etc). Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, response above.
 * Support by Tintor2 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda concerned about "" being accepted as part of the prose though.

Image review from voorts (pass)
Fair use rationales look good and the other images are public domain. The series logo is trademarked, but the image itself is marked as noncopyrightable. The images are illustrative of the article's content and the captions look good. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Support by Link20XX

 * I gave this article a skim and could only find one thing that prevents me from supporting; the infobox lists the anime as having aired on KIKU and Sci-Fi Channel in the United States and Fly TV in Australia, but this is not sourced or mentioned again in the article. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't find great sources to confirm that Utena aired on any of those channels. This article at Empty Movement references the series airing on the Sci-Fi Channel and "a television station in Hawaii" which I assume is KIKU, and while I would personally consider Empty Movement to be an in-context reliable source (the North American distributors of Utena consulted with them when releasing the series), they may not pass the smell test for an FAC. As for FlyTV, I can only find trace anecdotal evidence; this message board posting links to a TV schedule that purports to list the series, but the link is dead and again, not an especially reliable source. Perhaps it's best to just remove these entries from the infobox? Morgan695 (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regrettably that's probably the best option if those are the best sources that can be found to back up the claim. Link20XX (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support great work with this one! Link20XX (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Coord note / spotcheck
Hi Morgan, generally we waive spotchecks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing when nominators already have spotchecked FAs under their belt but as this would be your first solo effort I'm undertaking such a check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FN23: Okay.
 * FN25a/b/d/e: Okay.
 * FN25c: Couldn't see where the film is clearly referenced in this fashion, have I missed something?
 * That's me putting Ikuhara's comment that he "wanted to make it more naughty than the TV series" in Wikipedia language. I'm fine to either add the direct quote from Ikuhara or remove the prose entirely.
 * I get your point but I think you could do without the entire sentence.
 * Removed.
 * FN53: Source supports Adolescence of Utena being referred to by fans as The End of Utena, but can't see anything suggesting "affectionately".
 * I guess that's maybe a bit of my own editorialization, but my rationale to keep the qualifier would be to clarify that the nickname isn't used disparagingly. I don't feel strongly enough about including it if doing so would inhibit an FA pass, though.
 * I don't doubt it is an affectionate appellation but we need to stick to what the source clearly supports; for someone unfamiliar with the subject it wouldn't read disparagingly if we simply lost "affectionately". Can you recall other instances of such minor editorialising in the article?
 * Removed.
 * And to my knowledge re: editorialising, no; the two sections you identified were pulled from the article on Adolescence of Utena, where I had access to fewer sources than I did for this article.
 * FN111: Link didn't work for me.
 * Looks like it's a dead link, but the Archive link included in the source seems to be operating.
 * My bad, I overlooked the archived link -- okay.
 * FN114b: Okay.
 * FN116: Okay.
 * Hi, reply above. And I actually have done a solo FAC, so I don't know if that changes anything w/r/t the need for a spotcheck. Morgan695 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Morgan, what I meant was a solo FA that had had a spotcheck (I know at least one of your joint FACs passed a spotcheck). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, reply above. Morgan695 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just acknowledging, will get to it shortly, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay tks Morgan, that satisfies my concerns. To maintain a safe distance though I'm going to recuse myself from closing and let one of my fellow coords judge if this is ready to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)