Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mew Mew/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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:13, 22 July 2008.

Tokyo Mew Mew

 * Nominator(s): -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs), G.A.S (talk · contribs)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria for being an FA article. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It is thoroughly referenced from reliable sources, using a consistent referencing style. It has been peer reviewed and thoroughly copyedited, with all issues from both addressed. It follows both the Wikipedia style guide and the anime and manga MoS. It is of an appropriate length, with both non-free images having a proper FUR. The one not in the infobox is used to illustrate a section where the illustrated topic is explicitly discussed. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 11 is lacking a title
 * What makes http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/index.html a reliable source? Looks like a commercial listing to me. Normally, a couple of listings of a commercial site aren't a concern, especially for information, but there are a large number of citations to this source.
 * Likewise http://www.kalahari.net/default.aspx?
 * What makes http://brandnoise.typepad.com/brand_noise/2005/01/feline_females_.html a reliable source?
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 11 fixed. G.A.S 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CDJapan and Kalahari.net are used to cite information about the media related to the series; there are one citation per item. G.A.S 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What G.A.S. noted. CD Japan is the English language version of one of the largest CD sellers in Japan (sort of like an Amazon). Kalahari is also one. While commercial sites are the preferred option, they are both used to cite the existence of the CDs and DVDs noted in the absence of an official website. As none of the CDs are licensed, and those regional DVDs haven't been reviewed, its the best available source. The Brandnoise site is the official blog of scenarioDNA, a marketing research firm and think tank. So its a company blog by experts in the area of marketing, making it a reliable source I believe. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave the other comments and replies out for other reviewers to see. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "189-191" – en dash needed WP:DASH. Hm I think that's all I could get. Great job! Gary King ( talk ) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thank you. G.A.S 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also fixed the other page numbers - en dashes, the bane of my editing existence :) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 12:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments—Quite well written. Not opposing, but I have formatting issues.
 * Is there some way of preventing a pile-up of four citation numbers at the end of a sentence, like this? "Critics praised the artwork in both Tokyo Mew Mew and Tokyo Mew Mew a La Mode. Ikumi's "free flowing" style and character designs were seen as a perfect fit for the series.[54][55][56][57]". Can't it be conflated into a single note? And this: " The individual character song discs were released as standalone CDs on September 4, 2002.[34][35][36][37][38]". It's over the top.
 * I've removed overlinking: why DVD should be linked at all is beyond me, but twice in a sentence? MOSLINK says avoid the linking of the names of familiar countries, esp. anglopohone ones.
 * "twenty-seven", but other large numbers are in numerals. nine/10 is MOS's default boundary, I think.
 * The Japanese script is pretty, but just why is it necessary to make the text really difficult to read by inserting large tracts of it inline. Other articles have accepted the need to put intrusive non-roman equivalents in notes: I suggest that this be done here. TONY   (talk)  06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the citations can't be combined as they are different citations and all such statements have to be backed up. The one about the critics combines multiple reviews, hence the multiple citations. When they were removed, the statement was questioned, necessitating the need for the multiple citations. I've adjusted the CDs to combined four by using a different page. The Japanese names are included, in part, because the video games were merged in, and, in part, because its more accurate to include it for the titles, the same as we do with the lead. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand, the Japanese text is required by WP:MOS-JAPAN. Is it possible to provide an example of articles where this is provided in the footnotes? G.A.S 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MOSNUM, "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words...; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words". Most numbers in the article are in fact spelled out, except for dates. Should we change all of them to numbers or to words? G.A.S 08:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * About the dates, at WP:OVERLINK: In the main text of an article, autoformatting should be used either on none of the month-day and month-day-year dates, or all of them. So you can't have it both ways; either link all the full dates, or none of them. The way I've always done it is to link full dates, but leave mm-yyyy unlinked along with lone years.--  十  八  01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Until the mass delinking, it was consistent that only full dates were wikified. Apparently the MoS date changed so now they don't want auto formatting at all, hence all the dates being delinked (or at least, that's my understanding of it). Don't get it myself, but at this point I'd just be happy if someone would change one of their comments to support :P -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, User talk:Juhachi seemed to clear it up for me. Makes no sense why some people would want to change a long-standing convention though...--  十  八  05:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.