Talk:Kimihiro Watanuki/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's start.

• The lead incipit is confusing, especially in the very presentation of the character and its role in the story. I never saw the anime or read the manga, and this incipit is kinda too long for me. Nothing important, but more focused and less detalied sentences can help.
  • Trimmed. Hope it works.
• "Although the authors noted that Shizuka Dōmeki and Yuko were the series' most popular characters .... Nanase Ohkawa, felt it was because of his multiple skills".

This digression sounds superfluous to me. It must be moved to Reception, at least, IMHO.

• • Done.
• "A major theme in their series Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle, which crosses over with xxxHolic, is the use of the same people, the result of characters travelling to parallel worlds where they find alternative versions of people they met before".

This sentence should be simplified.

• • Done.
• "When reaching the series' conclusion, Clamp received many letters from fans who were saddened by Watanuki's decision to remain in the shop in self-exile, even after one hundred years, rather than return to society when given the option".

This sentence also fits mettere in Reception.

• • Moved.
• "The authors were pleased with the readers' comments. They wanted Watanuki to have a happier ending but clarified that the character's fate was the happiness he wanted.".

Who does "they" refer to?

• • Moved.

@Tintor2: Sorry. I was busy and I started the review now.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks for the review. Don't worry about the delay. I had time to create more Tsubasa articles in the meantime.Tintor2 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Watanuki as a high school student plagued by his ability to see spirits"

There's something wrong in this sentence.

• • Done.
• "...reviews criticised his irritating behaviour"

Well. Maybe "his behaviour, considered to be irritating" or something like this it's better.

• • Done.
• "Clamp believed Yūko was so interesting she could be the series' sole main character".

It's a tautologìa of the previous sentence, I guess.

• • Revised. I'm entirely sure the issue but if you have a better idea, feel free to tell me.
• "The dynamic between Yūko and Watanuki was connected respectively with Doraemon and Nobita Nobi from the manga series Doraemon".

"Connected"? "Inspired" sounds better.

• • Revised
• "Watanuki's personality and design were not difficult to write or illustrate."

For the Clamp group, right?

• • Revised
• "comedy-like tsukkomi situations".

A better explanation of tsukkomi would be great.

• • Specified.

Generally speaking, add more commas. For example: "created by the group of manga artists known as Clamp[,] introduced in the manga xxxHolic", "the producers had him try a more innocent tone[,] in contrast to other roles he had played", @TeenAngels1234: Thanks. Revised those.Tintor2 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: I might be busy tomorrow Friday so I guess I might be able to respond to more comment this weekend.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• When I started the review, a section about Voice acting was there. Why you deleted it? It looked pertinent.
  • I feared there was a clash with the prose and infobox. Still, restored.
• "Watanuki is known for being both volatile and caring.".

This description-like sentence can be deleted, or, at least, rewritten in an harmonic way to fit better in the tempo of the prose. For example: "He starts to be".

• • Revised
• "Watanuki learns this happened because of her bad luck, but Watanuki still wants to be with her, confessing his feelings for her once he recovers"

Try to avoid the repetition of Watanuki.

• • Done.
• "Watanuki is unaware he was being used to fill the gap left by Syaoran after he decided to turn back time and accept imprisonment by the sorcerer Fei-Wang Reed as payment".

Kinda confusing. Can you explain it better? Don't be afraid to add content, if needed.

• • Revised.
• "Before the series' start, Watanuki gave up the memories of his past as the price to find Fei-Wang and help Syaoran. As he could not remember his parents, Watanuki developed a strong sense of guilt, thinking it was his fault his parents had died; this guilt led to his ability to attract spirits".

Idem. Sounds like a post-revelation, right? Try "He descovers", "His ability, in the x part of the manga, is revealed to be..". Remember. You're describe fictional events in an encyclopedia, but you have to build a musical tempo.

• • Revised. Not sure if I did it correctly.
• "In an xxxHolic poll published in The Official xxxHOLiC Guide, readers voted Watanuki the most popular character in the series.[53] Although the authors noted that Shizuka Dōmeki and Yuko were the series' most popular characters.."

This sounds confusing. Do you have other popularity polls? If you find surveys in which Watanuki is just the third or the fourth most popular xxxH character, you can add a sentence between these two.

• Rearranged. The first commentary of the popularity was the series' early chapters while poll was conducted after its ending.
• "Watanuki's problem of constantly being followed by demons can be compared.."

Well. Maybe "was compared by Dani Cavallaro to.." is better.

• • Done.
• "Matthew Alexander compared Watanuki's new characterisation with Yuko's as it shows him maturing. He no longer throws angry tantrums and is unwilling to forget the witch".

Try to merge this in one sentence.

• • Done

• "His relationship with his two friends remains awkward to the point it felt like this reboot might attract older fans".

Well. "According to them", right?

• • Revised.
• So, why "Kimihiro Watanuki initially generated mixed responses from manga and anime publications whose reviews criticised his behaviour, considered to be irritating"? Try to rewrite this part, like a simple summa of Reception.
  • Merged the two sentences.

@Tintor2: That's all. Once these issues are solved, I'm gonna pass this.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks a lot. The prose is also my weak point when it comes to these articles.Tintor2 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: One last point: Reception should be shorter. All these sentences and explanations are too, too detailed. Generic sentences, such as "Its evolution has been appreciated[1][2], while other reviewers criticized its role in the last few chapters [3][4]" are sufficient. It's not that bad, but try to stick to the three paragraphs. Don't be afraid to be short and cut things.TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: Combined some parts. Now there are three main critics sections:

• 1. Introduction and growth
• 2. Older characterization in xxxHolic
• 3. Other appearances

I hope this helps.Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Brief summa. The article is well written. It has an appropriate length, and, after the review, it's well-focused. Each section gives adequate space for the subject, without going into too much details. The prose is now much clearer and more focused. Sources are good. It's also understandable for those who, like me, do not know the subject. Hence, it is promoted.TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)