Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mew Mew

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [1].

Tokyo Mew Mew[edit]

Nominator(s): AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)
previous FAC (03:13, 22 July 2008)


I'm renominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria for being an FA article and that all issues from the previous FA nomination have now been addressed. This article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, and properly follows the Wikipedia style guide and the Anime and Manga manual of style. It is thoroughly referenced from reliable sources and using a consistent referencing style. It has been peer reviewed, thoroughly copyedited, and is currently a GA article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • http://www.tv-aichi.co.jp/mewmew/kako/052/index.html deadlinks
  • There were concerns brought out in the previous FAC about brandnoise and the two CD retailers, which I left out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Check the FAC for the reasoning given for inclusion.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already fix the first with the addition of an archiveurl :) For the concerns over the two retailers, I still pretty much stand by my earlier remarks: CD Japan is the English language version of one of the largest CD sellers in Japan (Neowing). Kalahari is a South African retailer. While commercial sites are not the preferred option for the source, however they are only being used to cite the existence and releases of those CDs/DVDs, and in the absence of any other official or RS site, they are the best available source. The alternative would be to just pretend we don't know that the series was released in English in South Africa or that the CDs exist, losing valid information from the article. It is unfortunate, but with the series licensing issues, there is unlikely to be another source for any of this unless it is ever relicensed and re-released.
For Brandnoise, as I noted in the previous FAC, it is a blog, but it is the official blog of a company, scenarioDNA, which is a market research firm and would seem to be RS for that sort of information. From my understanding of WP:RS, such a blog is considered a reliable source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other folks to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On references:

  • Many of the links for published works go back to their Wikipedia articles instead of the source itself, including Anime News Network, Manga Pacific, Miachi Daily News, Taylor and Francis, and Tokyopop.
  • The use of Amazon and CD Japan is being used to verify track listings? Can you use the actual CD inserts instead of these sites? Secondary sources should be used instead to report how the CDs were received. Are there reviews for the music on them?
  • Is source #60: Forum Buzz actual news reported by reliable sources or press releases or the result of chat room gossip? It's difficult to tell with that source. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the links, they are linking the name of the source, right? So Anime News Network? i.e. they are linking to the publisher's wikipedia article? That's not a problem, as long as they aren't linking to that for the sourcing, which I didn't think they were. They are just giving a link to let folks know more about the publisher, it isn't the source being cited. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely scratch that...God... I do the same for The New York Times. I'm so embarrassed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caffeine. It is your friend. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, no problem. :) For the rest, I used the Amazon and CD Japan sites to primarily verify the CD release dates and general contents since the CDs were never released outside of Japan and would be difficult to acquire. I could not find information on them on any Japanese news sites or the like to use as alternative sources. I have not found any reviews on the series music at all, unfortunately, likely due to the lack of the international release for the CDs and the poor English release. :(
The Forum Buzz is based on verified info posted to AoD's forums by site moderators so for that particular site, I would consider it a reliable source. I can drop the ref, if needed, as it basically just backs up the first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose alone, not to say that a little polishing isn't possible.

  • "It was originally serialized in Nakayoshi from September 2000 to February 2003 and later published in seven tankōbon volumes by Kodansha from April 2003 to May 2004." The longer the sentence, the more likely the insertion of an optional comma. Here, I'd put one after "February 2003", especially as it divides a repeated construction.
  • What earthquake isn't sudden? You mean "powerful"? Tony (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a comma as suggested and removed sudden. It wasn't particularly powerful, just very quick and no aftershocks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Giggy

  • "Tokyopop licensed the manga series for English-language publication in North America and released the complete original series as well as the sequel; 4Kids Entertainment, meanwhile, licensed the anime series for North American broadcast" - I'd split this into two sentences.
  • "Well received by English-language readers" - what about Japanese reception? Since it started in that language I'd give it priority.
  • "Tokyo Mew Mew was generally well received by reviewers, who described it as cute and entertaining." - and then you give one review as an example... I dunno, I'd prefer if some more substance was put behind the claim

Giggy (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first. Unfortunately, no Japanese reception information has been found. Its been a regular problem in the anime/manga articles, where except for the biggest series, even sales figures are difficult to find. For the third, I've fixed that. Somehow a la Mode ended up in the middle of the original's set of reviews :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Giggy (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's no academic or peer reviewed literature out there about Tokyo Mew Mew? -Malkinann (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've ever been able to find, no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've actually never heard of Tokyo Mew Mew before, but I skimmed through this article and know a lot more about it. Sources seem fine (where they're needed,) no expansion is needed, I originally thought that more "reception" was needed, but I guess what's there is about all there is. Good job, whoever wrote this. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I wish there were more reception as well. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tokyo_Mew_Mew&oldid=1077421777"