Wikipedia:Peer review/The Heart of Thomas/archive1

The Heart of Thomas


. I've listed this article for peer review because its recent FAC was autofailed due to a lack of substantive reviews, and as there were still outstanding comments in the FAC when the nomination was archived, I would like to resolve them here before re-nominating the article. I'd like to invite User:Vanamonde93 and User:Aza24 to continue their respective comments and source review, and would also like to invite the editors who left comments but did not indicate either a support or oppose (User:LM150 and User:Gabriel Yuji) to make further comments if they so wish, with the goal of hopefully getting the article to a state where they can offer a firm support when it is re-nominated. Also pinging User:SandyGeorgia, as they suggested this PR and indicated an interest in commenting on it.

Thanks, Morgan695 (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, I have added your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. When you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. I will weigh in this week,  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
I am leaving this as a placeholder. Apologies for not being any help with the first FAC. If I do not post any comments by next week, please ping me as a reminder. I would love to see such an influential manga reach featured article status so I will try my best to not only help with this peer review, but also assist with the next FAC for it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article has already gotten a very thorough review from the below comments, and those editors are far more experienced than I am. I just have some relatively minor comments and I hope you find them helpful:
 * For this part, Today, The Heart of Thomas is considered a seminal work of both shōnen-ai and shōjo manga, I have two comments. I believe that it is discouraged to use words like Today as that will fluctuate depending on whenever the reader looks at this. I would remove it. I would also clarify who considers this about the manga (i.e. critics, academics, etc.). Aoba47 (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For this part, The Heart of Thomas is considered a seminal work of both shōnen-ai and shōjo manga, later on in the paragraph, I would also attribute who is saying this about the manga. Aoba47 (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted the Atlantic source as describing the series as a "seminal work" of shojo manga. Morgan695 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. Aoba47 (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also uncertain about having a M.A. thesis as a citation. I know this was discussed with SandyGeorgia below. I see your argument that it is high-quality because the thesis comes from a recognized and accredited institution and has a three-person committee. I respectfully disagree with you on this given my own experiences with the M.A. thesis process. I have written a M.A thesis myself (coincidentally on rape in yaoi and boys love so I have not only read a lot of the sources listed here, but I have also seen this manga discussed in scholarly works). I know experiences with the M.A. thesis vary wildly from student to student even within the same department. I had a bad advisor who did not give any feedback, and while my reader was helpful, I would say that my M.A. thesis is quite bad. I wrote it at a recognized and accredited institution and with a three-person committee, and I would never consider an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Apologies for the length of this comment and I hope it does not come across as too self-centered, but my own personal experiences with the M.A. thesis process makes me doubtful about its use here. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's a fair point. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, whether an MA thesis qualifies as an RS ultimately seems to be an individual value judgement; I think this specific source passes muster, but there will inevitably be editors who see MS theses as categorically inadmissible as RS. Morgan695 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an equally fair point, and I appreciate your explanation. I do trust your individual judgement as I am sure that you could identify what a well-done thesis would and should look like and whether or not it is appropriate for Wikipedia use. I think it is better to look at this kind of things individually as well, but I just had concerns from my own experiences with the M.A. thesis. I will try my best to do a thorough review of the article in the next few days. Aoba47 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies in advance if this matter was already discussed, but would it be beneficial to put the Japanese translation in the lead's first line (i.e. The Heart of Thomas (トーマの心臓)), as a note like it is done in the Sonic the Hedgehog article? I do not think there is a standard procedure for this as there are several featured articles that put the translation as a note (Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) being another example) while other featured articles keep it in the lead (like Allen Walker). I do not have a strong preference either way, but I just wanted to raise to your attention. I believe the argument for putting it as a note would be to avoid clutter at the top of the page.
 * This formatting is standard for anime and manga articles per MOS:ANIME. My assumption would be that anime and manga series are often still known and referred by their Japanese titles as a common name, whereas video games are often known as their English titles exclusively in English-language contexts. Morgan695 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. As I stated above, I do not have a preference either way on this point. I just wanted to raise this to your attention as it was something I noticed in some FACs. Aoba47 (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a comment about this part, with critics exploring the series' depiction of gender, religion, and spiritual love in their analysis of the work, in the lead. I have seen comments repeatedly in FACs that this sentence structure (i.e. with X verb-ing) should be avoided in FAs. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I have seen this note often enough that I would go through the article and revise any instances of these prior to a FAC.
 * Duly noted. The purpose is primarily to summarize the topics examined in "Analysis and themes", but I'll keep this in mind for the FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since manga magazine is linked the lead, I would also link in the article for consistency.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain about how the links are used here: both male-male and female-female. I understand why you do this, but I have Easter egg concerns as I could see readers clicking on this and expecting a different target. I think this could be even more confusing since this parenthetical part is listed after the general homoeroticism and not one specifically for a Japanese topic (which would make the links to the specific Japanese parts more readily apparent to a reader).
 * Clarified. Morgan695 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In the article, tankōbon is linked twice. Make sure that items are only linked on their first instance.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing on this point, Keiko Takemiya is linked multiple times and move the Kaze to Ki no Uta link up to its first instance used in the article as right now, it is linked in one of the time after the first instance.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Was there any further coverage on the sequels and prequel (i.e. critical reception, sales, etc.)? I was just curious as this section seems rather brief. I am assuming this is intentional to either keep this information in the Moto Hagio article or maybe for a future article(s) on these? Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sequels are short, one-off short stories that have never been published in English, so there is limited information on them. Morgan695 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler: Thorough source and paraphrase spot check
A couple of points:
 * Spot check: Gender I read Little Lord Fauntleroy a long time ago. I just found a copy, an Oxford World's Classics edition, edited with a critical introduction by Dennis Butts, 1993 on my shelves. You write, "Kaoru Tamura of Washington University in St. Louis compares the androgynous appearance of the boys of The Heart of Thomas to Cedric Errol of Little Lord Fauntleroy, which was translated into Japanese by Wakamatsu Shizuko; while it is not certain that Hagio read the work, Tamura considers it extremely likely, considering the aesthetic similarities.[41]"
 * Tamura was not "of WUSTL," for that typically means someone teaching there, but someone who studied there as a graduate student and made that comparison in her unpublished Master's Thesis (page 2). This should be made clear.
 * Please note also that it is not really "Cederic Errol of LLF," but rather either "Cederic, the little Lord Fauntleroy," or simply, "Little Lord Fauntleroy." Cederic is the Little Lord, the American boy who inherits a British title, and has to leave his mother in America to travel to England and be tutored by his doddering grandfather, the Earl.
 * As for androgyny, although mothers in the turn-of-the-century English-speaking world dressed their reluctant boys in LLF-suits, and although in later criticism, LLF was derided as a sissy, a milksop, and whatnot, that is not LLF's character. His was not so much an androgynous character as a bi-cultural one of the time, combining American themes (openness, democratic values, and sturdiness) with British ones (aristocratic values and acceptance of social hierarchy).  Please read Dennis Butts' introduction. Butts is a known authority on English children's literature; he has also written critical introductions for OWC's editions of Children of the New Forest and Burnett's Secret Garden.  He is also the co-editor and one of the co-authors of Children's literature: an illustrated history, Oxford, 1995.  Making a comparison and deducing androgyny on the basis of an unpublished master's thesis's superficial speculation is misplaced in my view.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Revised to "the titular character of Little Lord Fauntleroy." Your point about the cross-cultural nature of LLF is well-taken, and I anticipated that the reliability of Tamura would be a sticking point and intend to address it in SandyGeorgia's comments below. But ultimatley, the article only makes the comparison of Thomas and LLF because a critic does so. The nature of an article based on third-party sources is that it will reflect what published critics say, even if we as readers may disagree with those interpretations or could think of better examples; further, while discussion of Butts' interpretation of LLF as a character would be relevant to the article on the book itself, it would almost certainly be out of scope for an article on The Heart of Thomas. I don't think Tamura's comparison is an outrageous or spurious one, as the characters of The Heart of Thomas are one of many examples of characters in manga produced during the 1970s that were directly inspired by western European literature and that explored themes of androgyny (the cross-dressing Oscar François de Jarjayes of The Rose of Versailles being perhaps the most famous example). Morgan695 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I have read a bit more of Tamura.  She has interesting observations, and I don't have issues with using her. I note that the thesis's  Google Scholar citation index is zero.  That means it has not been cited by any other scholarly work.  But it was completed in May 2019, so it is relatively new.  In its favor, I note that it did pass muster in the thesis committee composed of experts in the field. Also, WUSTL, by making the thesis available in its Open Scholarship site (and assigning it a DOI number) does consider it to be an example scholarship.  I will let others here decide whether to allow Tamura, and will continue to check that it is used faithfully and comprehensively here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Gender-related worries:  These are some general remarks, not necessarily those of a spot check in "Gender."
 * Shamoon says in the very first paragraph of her book (page 1): "In Japan in the early 1970s, a transformation took place in the popular culture consumed by teenage girls. Young women artists, inspired by the atmosphere of youthful rebellion and creative experimentation at the time, took over the genre of shōjo manga, or comic books for girls, and changed it to address the concerns of teenage girls. The popularity of the comics they created granted legitimacy and gave voice to a coherent girls’ culture. By the end of the twentieth century, shōjo manga had become one of the primary sites of cultural production in Japan. This is a book about the development of shōjo manga as a genre and the meaning of girls’ culture in Japan."
 * During reading the lead of this article, a reader can get well into the second paragraph without having an awareness that the readership of the book, and of its type more generally, comprises teenage girls (at least in the main). I think that needs to be said in the first sentence or two and in words, i.e. independently of wikilinks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed the first sentence of the second lead paragraph to "The Heart of Thomas was developed and published during a period of immense change and upheaval for shōjo manga (girls' comics that are typically aimed at adolescent women) as a medium..." Morgan695 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I examined the Japanese translation of LLF serialized in Jogaki Zasshi, starting with the first issue and skimmed on until the last many weeks later. Surprisingly, there are no illustrations in this translation (except perhaps one of Burnett). So, if we are to make the case that Hagio (as an artist who is both an illustrator and a writer) internalized a notion of androgyny from LLF's Japanese translation, it certainly was not from the illustrations.  Adding a picture from LLF's French translation, therefore, gives the wrong kind of credit.  (It is also problematic artistically as it doesn't unambiguously represent LLF's appearance—in which a lace collar, black velvet suit, and "fair" (sandy) long curly hair were the trademarks.) Instead, perhaps we can have one of the two pictures below:
 * File:Elsie Leslie as Little Lord Fauntleroy cph.3b10326.jpg (it is a picture taken in 1888 of a seven-year-old actress Elsie Leslie posing as LLF; it is not only an androgynous figure on display, with light hair, lustrous velvet, and clearly identifiable lace collar but also of appeal to the mindset of a prewar girl culture (1910 to 1936) universally.
 * Or, if we are emphasizing Hagio's influences, it might be more accurate to add a picture of the magazine in which the translations were serialized. Readers can click on the LLF link and discover the androgyny very easily. The very first serialized issue of May 23, 1891 is not available in color, but July 18, 1891 issue is, and a WP image could be pulled off it.  (I'm still working on the visual grammar stuff below.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Rephrased to suggest one of two pictures.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Swapped for the Elsie Leslie example. The Jogaki Zasshi example is a very interesting find, but my assumption would be that if Hagio read the series as Tamura suggested she did, it likely would have been a contemporary re-print of Shizuko's translation and not the original 1891 serialization. Morgan695 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note I am doing a comprehensive source and paraphrasing check, i.e. checking that sources have been represented accurately in the article's paraphrasing. I will also be making sure that what is selected within a source is comprehensive. I am not necessarily checking that the sources used comprehensively cover all available sources, i.e. I will not be searching the various databases for sources on this topic.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Spot check: Gender I will now continue the spot checks in this section and will note them with greater detail in edit summaries in the article (to do this expeditiously) Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Spot check: Gender (sentences 1, 2, and 3). This is too close a paraphrase of the second paragraph of (Google Translate) translation of the French FA.  It probably needs to be rephrased. Also what Anan is saying is slightly different (as is the French version).  There is some synthesis here.  Also, Tamura, not quite a scholar in the same league as Shamoon and Anan, should not be wedged in so early.  I Will attempt some edits in the article next.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now rephrased the first few sentences; I have shuffled later sentences (for coherence) and separated Tamuro's observation into a separate paragraph. I will examine the last paragraph later today.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've revised some of what you've written:
 * Simplified the first sentance a bit; I don't think Anan is making a point about art styles reflecting a character's "inner self or milieu" as you have written, but is making fairly simple functional point about how the ways boys in Thomas are drawn is more closely aligned with how girls are typically drawn in manga.
 * I removed the section about Juli and Juli's sister resembling each other; it's mentioned in the source, but in isolation the idea that two siblings look alike isn't that compelling to an outside reader, and doesn't really capture what Anan is trying to say about the resemblance between male and female characters.
 * Noted that Deborah Shamoon is specifically responding to Welker in her analysis. Morgan695 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you've also removed the "boys in shōjo manga are at their origin girls..." quote from Hagio. I think what you've written needs to state in more explicit terms that the characters are seen by both Hagio and critics as allegorical women, and not just establish this by saying they are drawn as such. Morgan695 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, my edits are there to be acted upon by you. I will go over the sources again, but the inner selves and milieu bit were a rephrase of "allegorical women," which is generally opaque.  I think what is meant is "allegorical figures;" I was merely attempting to explain in simple language what that means in this context. You obviously know more about this topic than I do, and your reworking of my edits is appreciated.  I'm making my edits directly in the article rather than proposing them here mainly to move this thing along with dispatch.  The bit I removed was temporary, based on my sense that so much critical back and forth was beginning to look WP:UNDUE.  I'll look at that again. (But first, get the coffee cooking. :))   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did misread Anan on "signs." Thanks.  We are lucky, I might add in passing, that there is so much excellent critical opinion here (Shamoon, Anan, Welker, Hori, and Tamura).  Matsui, I haven't been able to locate in full glory yet, but will soon, and the Atlantic article makes a nice point, but I'm not sure it is accurate, i.e. that it is an Orientalist revenge fantasy or somesuch.  I'm generally leery about throwing around words such as "Orientalist," (much understood from the get-go, i.e. Edward Said onward).  The term was originally used for the body of opinion in early British India (1773 to 1830ish) that sought to meet India on its own terms; many were serious scholars (such as William Jones who laid the foundations of modern comparative linguistics or James Prinsep who deciphered ancient Indian scripts).  Also, even with excellent and plentiful sources, at some point the reader becomes overburdened.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Gender (sentence beginning with, "When adapting The Heart of Thomas as The November Gymnasium, Hagio relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school but decided the environment was too restrictive, ..."
 * Welker, to which the sentence is cited says on page 858, "Hagio first wrote the prototype for Thomas, “The Gymnasium in November” (Juˆichigatsu no gimunajiumu [1971] 1995), in both all-male and all-female versions, but it was the boys’ version that was published." I will examine some other sources and then rephrase the sentence. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already covered in part under "Production", but I've revised that section slightly to incorporate your new prose. Morgan695 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I didn't see that!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen your rewrites. Superb work.   I'll make one or two edits now but will postpone the rest until I've read Shamoon, Anan, Welker, and Hori more carefully, which I propose to do this weekend.  PS "Allegorical women" means women serving allegorically, representing something else (e.g. Rectitude, Justice, Wisdom, and whatnot).  What we have here are males who are allegorical figures, their tale an extended metaphor for issues of female inner selves, milieus, morality, and politics.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A word of caution: subordinators (e.g. "while" and "with") should be used carefully; they can introduce OR. The same with comment adverbs ("consequently)."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Religion "The Heart of Thomas draws heavily from Gothic art, with frequent use of angelic figures and references to Biblical stories.
 * Shamoon says on page 106, "The narrative in (The Heart of Thomas) operates on a discourse of spiritual love. Although the Gymnasium setting is rendered more or less realistically, there is a strong Gothic undercurrent, with references to ghosts, angels, biblical stories, and psychic visions, all symbolic of the characters’ psychological turmoil and indicative of the overriding importance and nearly supernatural power of spiritual love."
 * I'm not sure "a strong Gothic undercurrent" means drawing heavily on Gothic art. ( There is Gothic literature, of course, Walpole, Anne Radcliffe, ... ).  I think Shamoon seems to be stressing two things: a) homosocial spiritual love that arouses or engulfs the sensibilities of the boys, and b) the inner turmoil it elicits.  The underlying Gothic themes (ghosts, angels, Biblical stories, psychic visions" are representations of the turmoil (as she says).  So, to pick out only angels and biblical stories, but not ghosts and psychic visions, and to put that observation in the religion section, might be problematic.  These sentences need to be paraphrased better.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Religion: "The Gothic aesthetic was common in the works that influenced The Heart of Thomas, such as the novels of Herman Hesse.
 * Not seeing anything on p. 37 about Gothic. (On p. 39, Tamura does say, "Needless to say, such polytheism does not appear in the works Hesseor Burnett, whose perspectives are decidedly Christian.")   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Religion "Hagio is neither Christian nor monotheist, and critics have noted that her presentation of Christian concepts often draws inspiration from animism as well as the Japanese polytheism of Shintoism and Buddhism." (cited to Tamura, pages 34, 37 and 39)
 * Monotheism is a superset of Christianity. Please note Tamura's phrasing on page 34: "she is not a Christian or even a monotheist."  What you have is not an accurate paraphrase.
 * On page 37, she says, "It tempting to attribute these subtly contrasting apotheoses to the difference between a Christian, monotheistic mentality and a Japanese, animistic, polytheistic one." and
 * On page 39: "Needless to say, such polytheism does not appear in the works Hesse or Burnett, whose perspectives are decidedly Christian. The notion that there are “gods” in the sky is perfectly common in Japan, however, and needs no explanation. Thus, although Hagio employs many Christian symbols and even biblical stories (the binding of Isaac, the betrayal of Judas), we should not presume that she is a Christian herself or has a deep knowledge of how such elements are interpreted in a Christian context."
 * All the comparisons have been made by Tamura. So, it is unclear who the "critics" are.  There is no mention of Shintoism or Buddhism.  I'm not sure Buddhism is polytheistic.  It is very likely not even theist.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Religion The spirit of Thomas is represented throughout the series as Amor, the Roman god of love; Oskar remarks to Erich that Thomas was possessed by the spirit of Amor, and that his suicide released the spirit. While Amor is often depicted as an angel in Western art, Hagio manifests him in multiple forms, such as the air, a landscape, or as temporarily possessing a character.
 * The page range seems to be 35–36
 * On 35 Tamura says, "In The Heart of Thomas, Thomas destroys his physical body but is revived as Amūru, koi no kami (Amor, a god of love), with wings."
 * Why are we emphasizing, "throughout the series?" The reader knows it was serialized. Tamura has only The Heart of Thomas or "the story" on those pages.
 * Thomas returns to life as a kami—or spirit—named Amūru, a manifestation of Amor, the god of love in Roman mythology (Cupid in Greek mythology). (kami has a WP page; Should we use "kami" and link it.)
 * Also on 35, in Oscar's conversation with Eric, the definite article is not used for Amaru. Indeed, there are many ranks of Amūru:  "an Amūru dwelled within him, quite a high ranking one too."(v1:163); "By destroying his body, Thomas released this Amūru into the sky" (emphasis mine)
 * "temporarily possessing a character" can be interpreted as "temporarily having a set of traits or moral qualities, a personality." It might be clearer if we say, "temporarily inhabiting a character in the story."
 * So, all in all, I feel these two sentences should be rewritten with this critique in mind.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've revised this section a bit to better communicate a distinction between plot and analysis. Oskar does indeed remark that Thomas was possessed by Amor, but it's unclear how literally we're supposed to take him, since the conversation is in the context of him talking about how Thomas beguiled his peers and was beloved by them. That is to say, it's not an Angels in America-type situation where the angel of Thomas appears as direct plot, Ethel Rosenberg-style, to guide the characters. The part about Japanese kami is also Tamura's analysis rather than direct plot, so I've noted that as well. Morgan695 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Religion (last sentence) Various figures from Christian and Greek mythology also manifest in this manner, such as the angel Gabriel and the Moirai.
 * Gabriel appears in the Old Testament, so belongs to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (as Jabreel), i.e. to the Abrahamic religions. Not sure they consider him a part of "mythology" though.
 * In Shamoon, p 116 and 117, Gabriel is mentioned not so much as a character from Abrahamic legend but as an aspect of the visual grammar employed in storytelling. Gabriel (in a very feminine form) appears blowing a trumpet in the bottom half of the page in the top half of which Juli has said, "I have no wings," i.e. no capacity for love (according to Shamoon). This is repeated in the caption of Figure 5.2 on page 117.  I'm hard-pressed to find any mention of the Bible, let alone Christianity in any notable way.  What is notable is Shamoon's sentence on page 116: "Similar images of angels appear throughout the story, as the thoughts of the characters."  As for Tamura moirai, they should be in a separate sentence; the sentence should explain the figure in the panel a little more (again feminine, holding a spool of yarn, etc.).  I will move on to the Visual Style section next.  I should have begun with that, and I'm sorry I did not.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Religion A general remark first: Tamura's main points are psychoanalytic ones, indeed those of object relations theory. Are we using those?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Will revisit once I have an answer.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I re-wrote the Religion section on the basis of your notes; it's getting late where I'm at, so I'll likely revise it again in the morning. I'll also review Tamura to see if any of her discussion of object relations theory could be included in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was very helpful.  I have some minor comments, but it might be easier if I simply edit the Religion section. The comments will become self-evident there.  I hope you don't mind.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A clarification: I have nothing against borrowing from different sources, including other languages' WPs. But this should be done in a piecemeal fashion, with the other languages WPs only serving as pointers.  Take a claim from that WP.  Find the best English-language sources for that claim.  Include these sources if they are not already included in your set of sources.  Then revise the claim in their light, i.e. paraphrase again, and so forth.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments; as some require greater attention than simple copy swaps, I'll review in the next few days and indicate my responses here. Morgan695 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Spot check: Visual style (Sentence 1) In The Heart of Thomas, Hagio develops the visual grammar of shōjo manga of the 1950s and 1960s – which was largely inspired by jojōga (lyrical pictures) and prewar girls' magazines – into a new and original style.
 * It is pages 113–114. Shamoon says, "Hagio Moto’s work also shows the development of shōjo manga’s discrete visual grammar, using elements taken from illustration in prewar girls’ magazines (particularly jojōga, or lyrical pictures) to create a new dynamic storytelling style."
 * jojōga or lyrical pictures, it seems, are a part of the illustration of the prewar girls' magazines, not distinct as the current phrasing seems to imply. (On page 114, she says again, "As with jojōga in prewar girls’ magazines,").
 * "Hagio develops" is too strong; she says later: "Hagio is not solely responsible for creating the distinctive shōjo manga aesthetic, ..."
 * "Grammar," in the transferred sense, has the meaning of "basic rules, elements, or principles." It is better to paraphrase for the reader's benefit unless it has a more technical meaning in graphic fiction illustration; if it does, that meaning should be found and paraphrased.
 * "Discrete," in light of what little I have read, I think, has the meaning of discontinuous or disconnected. You would know more, but layering in a panel, I'm guessing, would be an example of it. It is better paraphrased.
 * I don't think Shamoon means "inspired," for that is more general. She thinks the borrowing is more direct.
 * "New" generally implies "original," so the latter is probably not needed.
 * Shamoon, on the other hand, says, "dynamic." I don't know if it too has a technical meaning, but if it doesn't, it could be paraphrased as "active" or "energetic," perhaps. If it does have a technical meaning, again, it should be found.
 * Finally, even though you do preface your statement with "of the 1950s and 1960s," would "pre-World War II" or "pre-Second World War" be more informative for our 21st-century readers?
 * Summing up, would something like the following be better and more informative: In The Heart of Thomas, Hagio develops important aspects of the elements principles of discontinuous visual composition employed in shōjo manga of the 1950s and 1960, giving them a new and more active narrative style. She does so in part by borrowing features from the  illustrations in pre-World War II Japanese language girls' magazines, especially lyrical pictures (jojōga). ?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to "In the The Heart of Thomas, Hagio develops important aspects of the principles of discontinuous visual composition that would come to define the distinctive aesthetic of shōjo manga.[35] She does so in part by borrowing features from illustrations in pre-World War II Japanese girls' magazines, especially jojōga (lyrical pictures).[35] While Hagio is not solely responsible for this aesthetic, which developed gradually beginning in the 1950s through the contributions of multiple artists, Deborah Shamoon of the National University of Singapore specifically highlights..." Morgan695 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Spot check: Visual Style (Sentence 2): Deborah Shamoon of the National University of Singapore specifically highlights the use of stream of consciousness, open panels, symbolic imagery, emotive backgrounds, and layering of visual elements as hallmarks of this new style.
 * Shamoon says, "The significant features of this new style, seen in Tōma no shinzō, are interior monologue, open frames, layering, symbolic imagery, and emotive backgrounds, which taken together form the visual grammar of shōjo manga."
 * Sentence 2 is not only too closely paraphrased but is also too jargon-ridden for the ordinary WP reader. To be sure, Shamoon's sentence is jargon-ridden, but it is an introductory one-sentence summary written for a readership that includes specialist readers who do not need further explanations; for less knowledgeable readers, Shamoon explains further over the next five pages with the help of two illustrations.) I will get to the re-paraphrasing next but wanted to make this general point first.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Final comment I've completed what I wanted to do.  I am now also flat out of time.  The article is looking good.  I wish you all the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Postscript Further Comments Last night when I made the "final" comment, I was both tired and foggy about how much available time I might have. This morning, I see that some time has freed up this week.  So I will continue with the remaining two subsections of Analysis (Gender and Spiritual love), and I might go over the Synopsis, Principal Characters, and Context sections.  I apologize to, , ,  for this change.  I believe this addition will make my spot checks more representative of what I have advertised them to be.  Thanks,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FAC note The article is looking better, but in my view, it needs some more work before it becomes a good encyclopedia article, by which I mean an article that lucidly communicates specialized knowledge of (a wonderful) subject to a lay audience. Parts of the article still read more like a term paper than an encyclopedia article.  It is no fault of yours; it is simply par for the course for such topics (in which scholars make fine points, and disagree about them).  I would recommend that you hold off on resubmitting this weekend (at the end of the two-week cooling-off period recommended at FAC).  Please give yourself and the article two weeks more.  (It will take me another week to finish.) I hope you don't mind.  I know nominators are impatient, but the article will be much the better if you delay resubmission.  The fine revision that I'm recommending cannot be done during FAC reviews, and I will not be reviewing this article at FAC.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Morgan695, Being able to approach FAC with this much of a source review done already should make for much smoother—and expedited—sailing at FAC, saving LOTS of time. Giving F&f one more week to wrap up would be a wise course, and probably a timesaver on the route to the star, so I endorse his suggestion.  I apologize for having been so useless, as my computer has still not left the FedEx warehouse after ten days of weather delay on its route to repair, and I am limited by ipad typing.  But with this much source work done, I will be in position to read the finished product with an eye to supporting when it does reappear at FAC. Most impressed by this effort!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Morgan695, Just noting that I am reading four sources: Shamoon, Welker, Hori, and Anan. (If I am showing in my WP contributions to have been making edits to other articles, it is in the nature of taking a break from the reading.)  Fascinating stuff, and incisive.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done most of my reading (in the limited time I've had). I will begin making edits again later today mainly in the Analysis section. Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a list of the authors, their backgrounds, publications I am reading, and their scholarly reception on the article's talk page in this section.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm now going to edit the article, mostly Development and Analysis. I'll keep making notes here as I proceed.  If you don't mind  I'll be adding the "under-construction" tag to those sections.  I should be done in a couple of days.  You can then respond and revise my edits.  Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that you have a beautiful writing style, especially in narration as in Synopsis and Characters, and I do not want to change it. My main interests are faithful paraphrasing of sources, their comprehensive use (but not back-breakingly so), and coherence of argumentation. Once I have done this, you can smooth the prose in your felicitous style, but keeping in mind that the Analysis section has more description than narration. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I should be done tomorrow AM. I've made a few drastic changes mainly to see how they look tomorrow AM.  You can always revert them, but please let them remain for now.  Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your resolute patience. As you will have seen, I've made some drastic changes.  You are welcome to undo all of them, but here are my reasons:
 * Tamura and to some extent Thorn are weak references (though in fairness to Thorn, her forte is the translation).  The others—Matsui, Shamoon, Welker, Anan, Hori, Hemmann, and McLelland—are (were) established scholars in the field with Ph.D. students of their own.  T&T are not; moreover many of their arguments have not been echoed anywhere else. The article suffers by relying too much on them, especially Tamura.  I've tried to reduce this dependence and distribute the sourcing load among the others.
 * Analysis, especially those of scholars splitting hairs, can be onerous for a reader. I think three subsections constitute a tight organization.  I've combined Religion and Spiritual Love.  The spiritual love part probably has too many quotes. A reader's eyes will glaze over. I'm flat out of time now, please paraphrase them or remove some of them.
 * I've added some pictures with Japanese themes. From my perspective, the article had too many Western-themed pictures.  Hagio and Thomas despite the inspiration they have drawn from bildungsroman, Hesse, ... are in the final analysis Japanese creations, a part of the contribution Japan has made to modern literary culture. The pictures, in my view, need to mirror that story.
 * As I've already stated, you've done a great job in the other sections, especially Synopsis and Characters; I love your writing style. Please do what you must with the article.  I think it is ready for FAC, and will support it there, though not make further comments there.
 * Finally, it is not my job to give advice, but I think it would be a wonderful gesture if you make User:Lady freyja, the principal author of the French Wikipedia FA, fr:Le Cœur de Thomas, to which this article owes so much, a co-nominator at FAC. Her user page says she can write English at a reasonable level of competence.
 * I wish you all the best. This peer review has been a rare and wonderful learning experience, opening up a world about which I had known nothing before.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comprehensive review; I'm glad to hear you got something from the experience of learning more about this subject. I'll likely close this PR and re-nominate at FAC in a day or two after I do another few sweeps for coherence/copy editing. Your point about Tamura is well taken (and one I anticipated would be a concern back before this article was even a GA), but I concur with your earlier comments that her analysis is valuable and does enhance the article. Thorn may not be as exhaustively cited in academia, but I'd be remiss not to note that she is a leading figure in the dissemination and analysis of shōjo manga in English, and certainly an expert in her field. I've mostly done simple re-writes to your edits, though I did re-add the analysis around Thomas' suicide to "Religion and spiritual love"; per Hagio's quote, the question of why Thomas kills himself is a central plot detail that is never directly resolved in the text, so analysis of it is in my mind a crucial component of the article. Again, thank you deeply for your assistance in this peer review. Morgan695 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia
Placeholder to being work ... slowly; besides the back issues, my keyboard had an unfortunate encounter with my full cup of coffee, meaning my typing will now be even worse than usual as I adapt to a new setup ! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please use the |trans-title= parameter on citation templates to add an English-language translation on non-English language source titles.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * HarvRef errors: McLelland, Mark; Nagaike, Kazumi; Katsuhiko, Suganuma; Welker, James, eds. (2015). Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 978-1628461190. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMcLellandNagaikeKatsuhikoWelker2015. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a formatting choice to indicate that both of the subsequent two sources are chapters in Boys Love Manga and Beyond that was suggested in the source review. Morgan695 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone who speaks HarvRefs better than I do can show you have to make the error go away ... i think it is harvref=none, but not sure ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * could you turn off the harvid for McClelland, to remove the HarvRef error? I don’t know why the Harvard citation documentation makes it impossible to figure this out, but this time, I will save the diff after you work your magic.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * '|ref=none' added! DrKay (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In my usual post-FACbot talk page cleanup after FACs are closed, I saw that there is a translated from template on the talk page which is incompletely or incorrectly filled out. (Some of the missing detail was subsequently provided at WT:FAC.) The template does not include the version copied to, and the version copied from does not correspond with the dates of the copied to version.  Getting the correct versions identified on talk is important to WP:CWW, and will help in the indepth source review that will be needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done; comments on "indepth source review" already made below. Morgan695 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not share F&f's concern that FAs cannot be from copying within, but when an article has been translated, there is a whole 'nother level of source checking that needs to be done. Sometimes that involves making sure there was no exact translation from non-English sources (as direct translations are plagiarism), and sometimes it involves making sure the original text that was translated did not include any too-close paraphrasing, etc.  That is, since most of this article was translated, we need to get busy doing a comprehensive source check.  This will probably involve scanning and emailing some pages from books.   are you still planning to do the source review, or will you need to split up this work?  For example, there is heavy reliance on Shamoon, which will need a thorough spot check, as a good deal of the text here may have originated on the fr.Wikipedia. Advancing this work during the two-week wait period will considerably improve the chances that the next nomination will succeed!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify that the article is not a line-for-line translation of the French article. I used its article structure and sourced it heavily, but I re-wrote the copy from the machine translated text; the overwhelming majority of sources used are also in English. So I don't believe that a source check that is any more vigorous than that which is typical for an FAC is needed here. Morgan695 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * SandyG and Morgan695: I am doing the thorough spot check. I will make that clear in my subtitle.  I will not be addressing the reliability of Tamura's thesis, only checking that she is both faithfully paraphrased here and comprehensively covered.  Ditto for Shamoon. PS I am sorry to hear about your husband SandyG.  I hope he is feeling better.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, he is much better, but now my computer is at the doctor, seems it did not want that cup of coffee after all, meaning I can barely keep up here with iPad typing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Separately, I am concerned that a Master's thesis is being used, if that is correct as indicated by F&f above.
 * I anticipated that the Tamura source would be a sticking point in FA, but I believe this one passes muster. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, masters' theses are permissible as sources only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Though SCHOLARSHIP offers no specific guidance on what constitutes "significant scholarly influence," in evaluating the reliability of the source, I considered that it was produced by Washington University in St. Louis, a recognized and accredited institution. The thesis was reviewed by a three-person committee, meaning it was not merely a final term paper submitted for a capstone class, and all members of the committee are recognized and published academics. The document itself is also 76 pages, and while length is of course not a reliable indicator of quality, it is clearly a length that is longer than a typical term paper. In my own subjective analysis, I noted that the thesis was well-written and cited, and thoughtful in its analysis; when you write a lot of anime and manga articles you come across a lot of garbage masters' theses when you're looking for scholarly sources, but I believe this is not one of them. Morgan695 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording “ Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence” at WP:SCHOLARSHIP certainly isn’t very helpful; SarahSV is very active at that page and may provide more guidance. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am unclear on the formatting in the Characters section .. sample .. Ante Löwer (アンテ・ローエ) Proper nouns are not italicized in non-English text, and I'm not really sure what we are looking at here.  How does the second English translation relate to the first, and why is it italicized ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The characters are listed with their English-translated names, followed by their original Japanese name, followed by the Japanese name in Hepburn romanization; this is standard formatting for anime and manga character lists. Hepburn is always italicized per    MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Morgan695 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FOREIGNITALIC specifies that proper nouns are not italicized, so in those cases, the language template has to be overridden. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify with WP:A&M; I recognize that the master style overrides any Wikiproject style, but I've only ever seen Hepburn character names formatting in italics, and someone there may have better knowledge of specific policy than I do. Morgan695 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the relevant policy in FOREIGNITALIC in this case is A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name; e.g.: Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg). So I believe a name being referenced in a character list would be covered here. Morgan695 (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review duplicate links; there are quite a few, but whether they are justifiable is often a judgment call. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed some overlinking. Morgan695 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * However, she warns that this process can be detrimental to the reader, writing that this identification "can easily slide into self-indulgence, an intellectual equivalent of drug-taking."[45][46]
 * Please review for overuse of however, along with also. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information, and see User:John/however.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please doublecheck throughout for MOS:LQ; it can be difficult for reviewers who don't have access to these sources to check these (see sample above). There is more to check.  Another sample: Shamoon argues that these techniques create a three-dimensional effect that "lends both literal and symbolic depth to the story."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirmed punctuation placement on both sources. Morgan695 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, unmatched parens here ... Thorn notes that the themes and characters of The Heart of Thomas are also present in Hagio's 1992 manga series A Cruel God Reigns, describing the series as "the adult version" of The Heart of Thomas."[17] Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is there a portal in the lead? See WP:LAYOUT or MOS:APPENDIX. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is standard formatting on articles on manga and anime; Template:Infobox animanga includes a link to the anime and manga portal as its footer. Morgan695 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be standard for them, but FAs have to conform to MOS. I wouldn't personally oppose a FAC on these grounds alone (I only oppose on MOS if the issues are widespread), but someone else could, and the oppose would be valid.  The thing is, the buck stops at FAC as far as WikiProjects going their own way and ignoring MOS; one of the things FAs do is uphold the house style. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but if someone is petty enough to oppose the FAC on the grounds that it uses the infobox that is used on every single anime and manga series article on the encyclopedia, I'd assume they weren't operating in WP:GOODFAITH in the first place. Morgan695 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My (typical) approach to something like this is to at least mention it on the FAC, even if/particularly if I'm not willing to enter a full-on Oppose over one MOS issue. The thing is, the WikiProject should be encouraged to change this; if they don't or won't, we have to at least have something registered on the FAC so that the next FAC can't come along and claim it's OK based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because they saw it on FAC.  It's not OK--it's irritating, even if unworthy of an Oppose when all else is in order.  FAC is the opportunity we have to get WikiProjects to understand house guidelines, and that their local consensus and conventions can't overrule global consensus (ps, one of the reasons I like peer review is that we can hash out items like this outside of the remit of Support/Oppose, without prejudicing the FAC).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you (or others) have addressed (or are reviewing) everything I raised ... if my computer gets returned from repair while PR is still open, I will try to read through to offer more, but not sure how long it will be. I hope you found the Peer review experience worthwhile and a good use of time, and that it puts the next FAC in a stronger position. Good luck, Sandy Georgia (Talk)
 * MOS:CAPTIONS, remove punctuation from sentence fragments. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly because of my husband's recent retinal detachment, the unlinked use of the word Sclerotic is tripping me up :) And we don't have a link on wikipedia for the usage here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was using the term to reference the regressive and rigid conventions of that genre; Class S depicted same-sex relationships (female-female, specifically) as "emotionally intense yet platonic relationships, destined to be curtailed by graduation from school, marriage, or death. The root of this genre is in part the contemporary belief that same-sex love was a transitory and normal part of female development leading into heterosexuality and motherhood." Morgan695 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternately, double check for MOS:OVERLINK, eg angel is word commonly known to most English speakers. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed some overlinking. Morgan695 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to move the first image in the "Gender" section to the right, so the boy is facing the text rather than off the screen. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some HarvRef errors have crept back in ... perhaps these sources are no longer used and need to be removed? Otherwise, there is a citation error somewhere ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Matsui, Midori (1993). "Little girls were little boys: Displaced femininity in the representation of homosexuality in Japanese girls' comics". Feminism and the Politics of Difference. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-69076-1. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMatsui1993.
 * Shamoon, Deborah (2007). "Revolutionary Romance: The Rose of Versailles and the Transformation of Shojo Manga". Mechademia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2: 3–17. doi:10.1353/mec.0.0009. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFShamoon2007.
 * See Category:Harv and Sfn template errors for information about installing scripts you can use to detect HarvRef errors. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-added the prose that used these references; not sure why they were removed. Morgan695 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Link20XX
Putting this here as a placeholder. I'll have comments soon. Link20XX (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * oh snap I forgot I put that there. I'll look over the article, but it looks pretty good already. Link20XX (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is one quick comment:
 * The full name "The Heart of Thomas" is used 4 times in the section "Adaptations". Maybe try replacing some of them with "the series", "the main series", "the manga", etc. Link20XX (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no further comments to make at this time. When you re-nominate it, I will look at it again. Link20XX (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Short comments by Chipmunkdavis
Best, CMD (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead is good at briefly translating the Manga jargon, but the infobox image caption uses "tankōbon" without explanation. Perhaps "volume" is the best translation, as it is the term used in the infobox elsewhere, although I note "collected edition" is used in the body.
 * Done. Morgan695 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The length of the serialization is 33 weeks, but which is neither two/three years or 5-9ish weeks. Assuming the new popularity was what kept it going beyond 9 weeks, is there information about how why the original multi-year intention was not followed through?
 * The source does not specify, but I revised the section slightly so there is less of a contradiction. Morgan695 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What differentiates "related works" from "Adaptations"? The prose even uses the word "adapts" to describe The November Gymnasium, so it feels like it should be included in the Adaptations section.
 * This also came up in the FAC, so I suppose I'll relent and remove The November Gymnasium from "Sequels and related works" and retitle the section. Hopefully the distinction is clearer now. Morgan695 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Were the sequel and prequel written by Moto Hagio as well? It would be good to state this, if so.
 * Clarified. Morgan695 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not seeing from the Welker2015b source why the novel title is translated to be different from the series title. Welker also seems to also use "The Heart of Thomas" as the translation, and states even states the author was "Borrowing Hagio’s title verbatim".
 * Clarified; the Comic Natalie source confirms the full title of The Heart of Thomas – Lost Heart for Thoma. Morgan695 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde
Apologies for not looking in earlier. You largely dealt with my comments at FAC, and I didn't have much else to add: so I thought it best to wait for F&F to complete his source check. I may have some more prose nitpicks, but they aren't likely to be significant, and are not a barrier to an FAC. My largest concern remains the issue with coming-of-age as a theme; it seems to be all over, and yet not discussed; but you cannot do anything about an absence of sources, and I have not found any that you have missed; so I cannot oppose on that basis. This is a good piece of work. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded "Spiritual love and suicide" a bit to talk about the influence of the Bildungsroman genre, which should at least gesture towards coming-of-age themes. Morgan695 (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also added a bit on Japanese reviews from around the time the series was released, as this came up in the original FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)