Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shojo Beat/archive2


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009.

Shojo Beat

 * Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured article because all issues from its previous FAC have been fixed and the article meets all of the FA criteria. Currently a GA and was peer reviewed before first FAC. It has not changed substantially since that FAC as there is little new information to add. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments --an odd name 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The one image has alt text, which is good. However, "the character Nana Komatsu" should be replaced with a brief description of the character's appearance, as it would not be obvious from seeing only the cover that her name is Nana Komatsu.  (She is not fully named, or even called a character from Nana, on the cover; big text on a magazine cover is not always related to the picture behind it, either.)
 * No dab links or dead external links, and citation date formats are consistent Month Day, Year—good job.
 * I adjusted the alt. How is that? I think alts are now the hardest thing to do :-) Thanks for catching that one date...can't believe I hadn't noticed it! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt is perfect now, thanks. No problem on the date—remember, Wikipedia's a group work! --an odd name 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I went through most or all of the article on the last FAC, and it was good enough. I might not have checked the last couple of sections, so someone may want to look at them a little more closely. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review completed at previous FAC. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A few things, but I otherwise support. Arsonal (talk)
 * Uncertain, but would it be better to categorize the magazine in the infobox as shōjo manga?
 * The final sentence in the lead could be broken up a bit to clarify the ones that supported continuation of the imprints. Fans and/or industry experts?
 * Second to last sentence in the article: "Other participants praised the magazines fashion articles…" → "Other participants praised the magazine's fashion articles…"
 * Thanks and those three now all fixed :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I know nothing about this subject. Give me some idea in the first paragraph what you mean by "manga" without me having to jump around to a different article to find out. Also, you refere to colour tones but don't say what colour tones. I want to point out here that colours and tones are two different things. Tone refers to lightness and darkness. If you mean colours, it only takes one word. Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Manga is a fairly common word among literary, and is generally not explained in any of the other manga oriented featured articles/lists, nor good articles. It would be akin to explaining what a comic is in comic articles, or what is meant by thriller in saying something is a thriller film. Made color sentence clearer. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's similar to the issue we discussed last time, with parentheticals and all that. We couldn't come up with anything good that time, but it would be nice if we could. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Manga does not need to be defined - certain ideas we have to assume that readers understand. Since the definition of manga is not being disputed in this article and the article is fundamentally about manga, I think we can assume readers will come to the article knowing what manga is. Awadewit (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here's what I said at the last FAC: "It would be nice to have a little bit of explanation of the lesser known terms in the lead. Something so people don't have to click on "shōjo manga" and "light novel". We can probably assume that readers (of this article, anyways) know what manga and anime are. Although, if it gets on the main page, they would probably need more or orient them." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article needs to more clearly describe the contents of the magazine. For example, what kinds of stories were these series? What kinds of themes did they have? What types of plot lines did they typically focus on? If this kind of information is not available in the sources, at least include a brief plot summary in the table so that readers don't have to click on each story to get an idea of what was published in the magazine. Awadewit (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does clearly describe the contents - shōjo manga titles and several features which are all described. That is the type of stories. There is no central theme among them, they were a variety of titles with no specific focus in plot beyond shojo. And plot summaries do not belong in a magazine article. If people want to know details about each story, they are properly linked. The series are not first run series, they are not original works. The article is about the magazine itself, not the individual manga series which all have their own articles. Manga is a common term. The New York Times even does a manga best seller list. The lead notes that the series was targetted at young women - i.e. what shōjo is. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing some of your responses with the demand for a definition of manga above (which I agree is unnecessary) and my demand for an expansion of the description of the magazine's contents. Adding a brief description of the plot of the stories in the table will only help the reader - I had to click on each on of these links to see what kinds of stories this magazine published. It was tiring. We can fix this problem by providing just a little bit more information. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think summaries are needed and I think it would set a very bad precedent for other similar magazine articles. Shojo Beat was a short run magazine, but that would still be 15 plot summaries added. Can you imagine what Shonen Jump would look like if summaries were added for every series, or worse Weekly Shonen Jump which has featured hundreds, if not thousands of series? Would adding the genres be a workable compromise? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I would have preferred more detail on the plots, but in my view this is an acceptable compromise. In my view, the article is comprehensive and well-written. I can't speak to the quality of the sources, as I did not take time to review them all and I don't know much about manga, so I don't know if anything else is available. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note The "Author" column needs to be made sortable by last name; use sortname. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.