Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sasuke Uchiha/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018.

Sasuke Uchiha

 * Nominator(s): Flowerpiep (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) & Tintor2 (talk)

This article is about Sasuke Uchiha, one of the main characters from Masashi Kishimoto's manga and anime series Naruto. I am of the belief that it should be featured since it was copy-edited and received a peer review from which every comment was addressed. Right now, the article is a GA. I have done plenty of edits to this article, trying to revise the prose and organise the article better. Also, has been greatly improving the article with a lot of important edits, so this nomination is made on behalf of both of us. Thank you. Flowerpiep (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep


 * Pinging some users who have previously commented on the article, , , , and .Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Great coverage and references. I think there are some parts that could be rewritten for more clarity, but overall is understandable. I'd remove the description section, but that shouldn't affect the FA. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

 * Any/all books need locations of publishers Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix that. Flowerpiep (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Thanks for the comment. Flowerpiep and me already added location to every cite book. Feel to express any other concern.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Location means "city and state or, outside the United States, city and country", so for example "Tokyo, Japan". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Understood. I gave it a revision.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused. Should English releases be like "California, United States" or "San Francisco, California"?Tintor2 (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

US = "San Francisco, California"; Japan = "Tokyo, Japan". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the aclarations.Tintor2 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User comment: The issue was solved. See [[User talk:Flowerpiep

Image review
 * 1) Your FAC and location of publisher|here]].Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * File:SarutobiSasuke.jpg does not have a strong enough rationale for inclusion. Same with File:SasukeUchihapartIIbeta.jpg
 * File:Boushuu_uchiwa.jpg: what is the copyright status of the object pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Removed the Sarutobi image since it's not further elaborated in the prose and improved the rationale of IIbeta since there is an entire paragraph about it.
 * Changed the Uchiwa image to Own work also available in commons.Tintor2 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention but in wikicommons there is also an "Uchiha" image here. Would you find it worthy to reception?Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't think so - what benefit do you think the reader would derive from including that image? That would be a good question to consider when improving FURs as well - to justify a non-free image, we need to explain why removing it would be detrimental to reader understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Great work with the article; once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? Either way, have a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What image do you mean? I once again expanded the rationale of betaII. Should I remove it alongside the Uchiwa? I'm not good when it comes with free images.Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My question was regarding the Uchiha logo. For the betaII image, which of the features described in the article does it depict? This should be elaborated on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Revised further more and elborated on the captain image with citations. I won't add the Uchiha logo following your suggestions, but should I remove the eastern fan image?Tintor2 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The fan is simple enough in design that it's not a copyright concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I remove the IIbeta image or it now has a good rationale?Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's workable. I would encourage you to add some of the content from the article to the image description, to point out what traits exactly the sketches illustrate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Expanded the rationale further more. I think I can't add anything more. If not, then I'll remove it. Thanks for the image review.Tintor2 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments from Aoba47
 * For this part (but he later tries to be empathetic toward his teammates), I would say “more empathetic”.
 * I think that this part (a quest of gaining more strength regardless the cost.) would read better as (a quest to gain more strength regardless the cost.)
 * This sentence (Although Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga due to initially finding it difficult to write him as a teenager as well as giving him too many details, he has grown to enjoy drawing him.) is rather long and awkwardly worded in my opinion. I would revise this a little to have the information flow more cohesively.
 * In the lead, you mention that the characrer received “mixed responses”, but you only include aspects of the character that were praised. I would identify points that received criticism for balance.
 * For this part (Sanpei Shirato's Sasuke), I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of Sasuke to identify what it is for an unfamiliar reader.
 * I do not believe that “sequel” needs a link.

Thanks for the comments. I tried addressing him. Will check your nomination tomorrow. It's a bit late here.Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries; I greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to do so sometime in the future. Great work with this, and I support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy
Some prose issues: Down to the Description section so far. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "strength regardless the cost" -> "strength regardless of the cost"
 * "responses from publications for anime and manga" - this could be shortened to "responses from anime and manga publications"
 * "Many reviewers his impressive abilities shown across his fights" - missing a verb here. "Many reviewers noted his..."?
 * "originally had a different name which the author forgot" - this is unclear. Who forgot the name, Kishimoto?
 * "was honored to be chosen" - this should not be written in Wikipedia's voice - it should be changed to "said he was honored to be chosen"


 * Done. Thanks for the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from AmericanAir88
Thank you for giving input on my FAC, I will post my comments soon. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues:
 * "Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga due to initially finding it difficult to write him based on what his suitable look would be. However, the author has grown to enjoy drawing him."
 * Confusing Sentences


 * "Nevertheless, asked if Sasuke was good or evil, he called him a "very pure person"; although some of his actions such as following his clan's ideals are positive, his self-centeredness tends to cause problems with others."
 * Confusing Sentence and Grammar


 * Do a grammar sweep making sure the format is correct.
 * "Manga, anime, and video-game publications and related media have praised and criticized the character"
 * Confusing as it contradicts itself

This is a fantastic article, once these issues are addressed, I will totally give this a support. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Tried fixing every statement.Tintor2 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks Good - Support. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll give my thoughts tomorrow, but I took a quick look at the article, and so far so good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review
I'm sorry for the delay (real-life stuff happened), but I just did a quick source review. All of the sources meet our guidelines (i.e. no self-published sources and the like), and are either live or are archived. No problems were detected, and the article is adequately sourced. This is a pass for the source review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. The only one I feared the one from Larp Editores, but they are the official translators of the manga in Argentina.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Review/comments from Alexandra

 * I am happy to support the article now, and apologize for taking long to respond.--Alexandra IDVtalk 11:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808
I read through the entire article, and here are the issues that I had. -- JDC808  ♫  05:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Development
 * Third paragraph, this sentence: "Kishimoto stated that Sasuke was neither of these two and called him a "very pure person"." ---> Whenever there's a direct quote, always put the source at the end of that sentence.
 * Last paragraph, this sentence: "For the spin-off Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring focusing on Sasuke and Sakura's daughter, Sarada Uchiha, Kishimoto wanted to explain the couple's connection." ---> This is oddly constructed. Some punctuation could fix this though here's my suggested rewrite: "For the spin-off, Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring, which focuses on Sasuke and Sakura's daughter, Sarada Uchiha, Kishimoto wanted to explain the couple's connection."
 * Design
 * In the first and second paragraph, you're basically repeating information (more specifically, about how Sasuke was challenging/difficult to design/draw and how Sasuke originally looked too old). As I read the first two sentences of the second paragraph, I realized that I literally just read this same information in the preceding paragraph. I almost thought it was word-for-word. I would move "Kishimoto also considered Sasuke his most challenging character to design. He lacked a clear idea of how his face should appear, and in his initial drawings, Sasuke looked too old for someone who was the same age as Naruto." out of the first paragraph and make it the beginning of the second paragraph and revise where necessary.
 * "midway through the series' first part (Part I)" ---> Kinda redundant. I understand what you were trying to do here, but it looks odd. This could be fixed by saying "midway through Part I of the series"
 * Same thing here: "Kishimoto's design focus in the second part of the plot (Part II)" ---> "Kishimoto's design focus for Part II"
 * Personality and voice actors
 * "At the beginning of the Part I anime," ---> Oddly structured. Suggest: "At the beginning of Part I of the anime,"


 * Thank you for the comments. I tried to fix each one of the issues. Flowerpiep (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
 * Great! All of my issues have been resolved. I Support this nomination. -- JDC808  ♫  07:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This has had quite a bit of review, but I'd feel a little happier with a little more review of Criterion 1a. It has been addressed above, but I think we could look a little closer to see if it meets 1a. I think we also need a little more source review. As far as I can tell, the source review above did not look at the formatting of sources, or consider their reliability in any depth. Finally, I notice that we are using "however" rather a lot (see WP:HOWEVER) and could look at reducing its usage. I wonder if (sorry to keep pinging you),  or  are available to have a look (sorry, you are in demand today!) Sarastro (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there any source that bugs you? I tried to make sure all of them were written by known writers as well as reliable. For example, Anime Now was a site related to Anime News Network, LarpEditores is an Argentinian publisher of the Naruto manga whose translator used to work at Editorial Ivrea. I'm not sure if Crunchyroll is allowed but the writer of that article also works at Ain't it Cool News. All the creation information is from guidebooks, magazines, artbooks among others.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing as such, I'm just not sure we covered this enough in the review. Sarastro (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Oppose. I looked at the lead and reception sections, rather than reading the whole article. The lead is not in bad shape; just one comment there: The reception section, however, needs substantial work. See WP:RECEPTION for some suggestions; I can see some thematic organization here, but the "A said B" problem remains in many places, and there is little to maintain a reader's interest in each paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga since he found it demanding to create suitable looks for him. On the other hand, the author has grown to enjoy drawing him despite the difficulty of this task. Wordy and not very fluent; these sentences could be shortened and joined, though I'm not sure the second point is really worth including in the lead.
 * The revised wording is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I made a a brief rewrite. Is this what you meant?Tintor2 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a major rewrite similar to the ones I often see in video games. What do you think?Tintor2 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Flowerpiep did a copyedit of my rewrite. Is it better this way? I tried to use Naruto Uzumaki as a base but Sasuke was not analyzed by that many scholars.Tintor2 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's definitely improved; the paragraphs now have a more natural internal structure. The quality of the writing is still not at FA-level, I feel, so I'm afraid my oppose stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the prose in general what's the problem or just the critical response? I asked Subzero Silver to check considering his experience and he gave it a second hand.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! Right now, I don't exactly understand the issue. We tried to solve the "A said B" problem in most places, as you had advised us. Also, each paragraph from the reception section covers mainly one aspect regarding Sasuke (the first paragraph is mainly about Sasuke's relationship with both Naruto and Sakura, the second paragraph is about Sasuke in Part II (in general), the third paragraph is about Sasuke during the very end of the original story (this part is seen as really important for Sasuke's character since it depicts how he finally chooses the right path after so many years; this is why this is a separate paragraph from the one with Part II in general), the fourth paragraph is about Sasuke in Boruto, and the fifth paragraph is about the fact that Sasuke and Naruto are complementary). So, I don't know what else to improve. Could you give us some suggestions? Or could you elaborate on why consider that the quality of writing is not at FA-level so that we can fix those exact problems? Flowerpiep (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
 * Yes, the A said B problem is mostly fixed; it's just prose issues. I've still only looked the critical reception section, so I can't comment on the prose elsewhere.
 * The problem with providing a list of issues that you can then fix is that it's very time consuming for both of us, and it's not what FAC is supposed to be for. I can give you some examples, but before I do that I'd like to get another opinion. , would you mind taking a look at the "Critical response" section and commenting on the prose quality? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to give us a bit of time before failing this? I asked two copyeditors to check the critical response section.Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Mike, I already got an approval from JDC808 who said he will try to copyedit the section. I also made a minor request in the league copyeditors.Tintor2 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are a couple of specifics, again just from the critical response section, where the prose could be improved. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * remarked to resemble: stilted.
 * was also a subject of praise, being highly popular among fans: implies causation; this is critical response, so you might just cut the last five words, but if not it should be "and was", not "being".
 * We still have some "A said B" in paragraph 2.
 * Following the post-Naruto media: what does "following" mean here? If it just means "since", and this paragraph is about the critical reception of the character in later media, the sentence should be rephrased to active voice.
 * Reviewing Boruto: Naruto the Movie, writers enjoyed Sasuke's fight scenes against the antagonists, most notably his team-up with Naruto, considering them the best parts of the film -> "Writers considered Sasuke's fight scenes in Boruto: Naruto the Movie, and in particular his team-up with Naruto, to be the best parts of the film". A little shorter, and a more direct sentence structure.


 * I tried to fix everything that you had listed above, with two mentions: Firstly, in the second paragraph, I let one example of "A said B" remain there since that particular writer has his own Wikipedia page, and I wanted to highlight this aspect. Also, while looking over the information from the link that you had offered us, I read that the "A said B" sentences cannot be avoided completely. Secondly, I rewrote this part "Following the post-Naruto media", but I didn't understand what you meant when mentioning the active voice. Isn't the sentence "Sasuke has received a positive response" in active voice already? Wouldn't have a sentence in passive voice theoretically sounded like this: "a positive response has been received by Sasuke"? Additionally, I revised the reception section (and other parts of the article) even further, following every piece of advice offered by user Popcornduff. Flowerpiep (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Comments from Popcornduff
Mike Christie asked me to take a look at the Reception section.

Sorry, but I have to Oppose this nomination based on this section. It's very dense and covers lots of stuff I struggle to see the relevance of. Examples:


 * Nippon Telegraph and Telephone customers voted him their fifth-favorite black-haired male anime character in 2014" Fifth favourite black-haired male character? Is that notable? It sounds incredibly arbitrary.
 * seventh-best Naruto character "Seventh best" isn't impressive.
 * In developing the fighting game Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2, CyberConnect2 CEO Hiroshi Matsuyama said that his favorite fight was the one between Sasuke and Itachi. Is this CEO's opinion on the best fight in one video game notable?
 * In a Mezamashi TV interview, Kishimoto was questioned by Nogizaka46 member Rina Ikoma while she was cosplaying as Sasuke; Kishimoto complimented Ikoma's cosplay. This is mystifying.
 * Another Bandai figure is a limited adult version of Sasuke from the Naruto finale and the Boruto franchise, which impressed Scott Green, a writer of Ain't It Cool News and Crunchyroll, due to its detailed and carefully defined facial features Again, this sounds like an incredible reach.

I could go on. Hopefully you get the picture: it's a torrent of banal information and not much fun to read. You can strip most of these out and that will make other problems, such as repetition or whatever, much easier to fix.

The prose itself isn't awful but there are still opportunities to simplify, and there's stuff that makes no sense to the reader unfamiliar with the subject matter:


 * Charapedia ranked Sasuke and Naruto's rivalry as the best one from anime media - > "... as the best in anime"
 * Sasuke-related merchandise has been released, including... -> "Sasuke merchandise includes..."
 * he wondered if readers considered Sasuke a more relatable character after the defeat of his worldview by Naruto's no idea what "the defeat of his worldview" means.
 * The Eastern fan, uchiwa, is said to be related to Sasuke's origins and his relationship with Naruto. This is totally uninformative. Related how? How do you relate a fan to a character's origins and relationship?

Sorry for the critical response, but... I think you probably need to remove at least half of the Reception section. Take a step back, ask yourself what's actually valuable for the reader (especially one unfamiliar with the subject), and get cutting. Popcornduff (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I said above to another reviewer, I am not familiar with Naruto and I was able to make sense of what was said. I don't know if you read the whole article (or just decided to oppose on this one section as Mike Christie did), but a couple of your issues are answered earlier in the article (articles are read from top to bottom). As another reviewer, I don't agree with your oppose, but I commend you on citing precise examples and your reasoning for them. -- JDC808  ♫  07:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Initially I only read the Reception section, but now I've read the entire article and I don't see how it clarifies the points of confusion I raised. It's possible I missed something, of course, in which case by all means tell me. The only thing I saw was the explanation for the fan, but that's not a fix - captions should make sense independently of the rest of the article, and it should be possible to summarise it in the caption concisely.
 * I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, but some general further points about the prose:
 * The article begins abruptly. Sasuke Uchiha was not included in Masashi Kishimoto's original concept of the Naruto manga. Who's Masahi Kishimoto? What's this Naruto manga? We should begin with a brief summary (one or two sentences only) that better sets the out concepts involved in the article - what Naruto is and who made it.
 * The "Description" section should be renamed "Character". The whole article is description. This bit describes his character.
 * The section also seems short.
 * There are several nasty uses of passive voice. Like the first sentence I quoted above, for example. More examples are Kishimoto wanted Sasuke's role in the series to be further explored. and Sasuke was going to be drawn as a more attractive person, but the idea was scrapped.
 * There's a bit of elegant variation. Instead of writing "the author", either write "he" when the subject is clear or name the author when it's not. Same goes with "the latter" - there is, in my experience, always a clearer (and shorter) way of putting a sentence together than having to use "the former" or "the latter".
 * Be careful with words like "ultimately", "eventually" etc. They usually don't add meaningful information and they don't in this article.
 * Be careful with the verb "to note". Facts are noted, not opinions. "He noted it was raining" is OK. Kishimoto's references to Japanese mythology in Naruto were noted to add layers to the story isn't.
 * Still quite a few words that don't add information - eg "one of the series' antagonists" - we don't need "the series" here, we know you're not talking about James Bond antagonists. Popcornduff (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I revised the article (especially the reception section) based on every single one of your comments. Flowerpiep (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep


 * The critical response section has been further touched.Tintor2 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's much improved, but in my view still not perfect. For example: In a Mezamashi TV interview, Kishimoto was questioned by Nogizaka46 member Rina Ikoma while she was cosplaying as Sasuke. It's not clear what information this sentence is trying to convey. Is it that Kishimoto questioned her? (Is "question" the right verb here? It implies something more like interrogation - wouldn't "interview" be better?) Is the point that a famous person cosplayed as Sasuke? (I assume the person is famous - it isn't explained who Rina Ikoma is or what Nogizaka46 is.) Something like Rina Ikoma, a member of the idol group Nogizaka46, cosplayed as Sasuke while interviewing Kishimoto about the series would be much easier to understand - but I still don't see what this says about the character's popularity. Do you see what I'm saying?
 * But look, this is just my view, and we could go on for weeks like this. If other editors support the article then I won't intervene. Popcornduff (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I changed that sentence to the one you had suggested. This part was kept since it shows that Rina Ikoma (who, as you assumed, is indeed well-known) chose to cosplay as Sasuke out of all other possible choices. She could have cosplayed as Naruto, since he is the protagonist of the series, but she still chose Sasuke. And this cosplay is especially important since it was presented in Masashi Kishimoto's presence. Flowerpiep (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
 * ... None of which is apparent to the reader. Popcornduff (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I removed that part. Flowerpiep (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Comments from Vedant

 * You might want to add the release years of both the movies in the lead.
 * "Masashi Kishimoto conceived Sasuke as a rival of the series' title character" - just Kishimoto should do. The first name is simply repetitive.
 * Also the second paragraph overuses the word "Kishimoto". You might want to replace some instances with "he".
 * Well, there's a similar issue with the word "Sasuke" in the opening paragraph of the Development section.
 * Although it's the same issue, I'd put them separately. The second paragraph of the Design section also overuses "Kishimoto".
 * " In a Mezamashi TV interview, Kishimoto was questioned by Nogizaka46 member Rina Ikoma while she was cosplaying as Sasuke." - Is that really worthy of being in the article?
 * "their teamwork and development throughout the series made the characters complex and mature, despite their youth." - by whom?
 * "Sasuke's appearances in Part II of the Naruto series have also been praised." - This is a little strange because the previous paragraph never talks about all out positive response. You might want to rephrase. Maybe write "Reviewers were more enthusiastic about Sasuke's character in the second series" or so.
 * "His weaponry and techniques, such as his Kusanagi sword and his Susanoo technique, were based on Japanese mythology. Critics asserted that Kishimoto expects his readers to understand his references, avoiding the need for explanations." - This entire bit might not really fit in the reception section; it really does not have any critique on anything as such.
 * "Sasuke's more-emotional demeanor made his scenes in Naruto: Shippuden interesting, as did his conversation with the Nine-Tailed Fox (a creature sealed within Naruto)" - Again, according to who? This reads like Wikipedia's own observation rather than that of a critic. You do not have to go into A said B, but the response must be attributed to someone.
 * "In the final part of the story, " - This entire paragraph reads like original research. You have to attribute the claims to the sources. The last sentence is the quintessential of the problem.

Although​ I do believe that the Reception section is not in thr best shape (I haven't read the character storylines because of my unfamiliarity with the subject), I think it can get there without this having to be archived. Let me know if you have any concerns about my comments.  Vedant  Talk  10:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for the comments. I tried to fix everything that you had listed above. Flowerpiep (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
 * Well, I can support this for promotion. I do not think that a couple of ambiguous claims here and there should hold this from getting promoted. It's very thorough and well written overall, I think if the comments are limited to the Reception section, they can be addressed easily within the timeframe of the review, if that makes any sense. Good luck, you guys.  Vedant   Talk  14:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

John
Agree that the reception section needs to be completely rewritten. What does a sentence like "Manga, anime, and video game publications and related media have praised and criticized Sasuke." even mean? "A number of writers enjoyed the character's fights but criticized his dark personality". A number? What was the number? Zero is a number. We hear again about the dark personality further down. Four howevers? As it stands I also oppose. --John (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed each one of the issues you had pointed out above and made further edits in order to organise the reception section in a better way. Flowerpiep (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
 * I read the whole article again. Honestly, I still think the prose needs a lot of work across the board. You're holding this up as an example of best practice; do you think "Critics compared the way Sasuke discovered late in the series that he had the ability to "blow away" the Nine-Tailed Fox's influence on Naruto to how the fan is used in Japanese mythology to exorcise evil by blowing it away." is a good last sentence? I don't. --John (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed the last sentence, since it was not that important. The article was copy edited on several occasions, and I honestly cannot see where the problems related to the prose are. Flowerpiep (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep


 * I liked that point, though - that Sasuke was born with a skill that his friend, Naruto, needs him to perform, like theirs is a fated friendship (within the text). Without having read Plumb's original paper, I can't really make a proper go of rewording it, but something like "A critic noted that Sasuke had the ability to 'blow away' the Nine-Tailed Fox's influence on Naruto, similar to how the fan is used in Japanese mythology to dispel evil".  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see what you mean. I added the revised sentence. Flowerpiep (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Closing comment: We have support for this article but there are three reasoned opposes as well. Therefore, as there is no consensus to promote, I think it is better to archive this FAC now. I would recommend that the nominator works with those who have opposed to address the issues away from FAC and renominate it when this has been worked on, and after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.