Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Naruto characters/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

List of Naruto characters

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, listing this article for peer review before going to WP:FLC for a run at featured list status. It's modeled after similar articles such as Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. Particularly, I would like to invite discussion on what to include in the "Other characters" section, which leads off to the List of minor Naruto characters article, and what to put there in terms of summary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Some initial thoughts:

  • Why is the anime listed first in lead when the manga is the primary work?
  • Alphabetical order. That and "manga and anime" sounds weird.
  • I think I'd rather not see the menu limited. While it will be longer, I think ti should be relatively easy to navigate to a specific character section.
  • Changed the limit to three.
  • I was curious on the choice of not using {{Anime voices}}, particularly in light of the recent MoS conversations. I like how it was done, though, as it does make it clearer that the anime is not the first work. I did notice a few jumps from using voice actor versus seiyū though. Should probably stick to one or the other.
  • Yeah, I prefer prose for that very reason. I'll work on keeping seiyū consistent though.
  • With Naruto being the titular character, shouldn't he be the first in the list?
  • He is. The "Team 7" section is just a header for his section.
  • For the minor characters section, my first inclination is to drop it all together, or do a short prose paragraph and merge in the minor character list.
  • That's been the two options that seem the most logical as of now. I'll wait for more discussion on it though.
  • Minor nit pick (no pun intended), but with the template below, is there a need for the see also section?
  • Technically no. Cut.
  • Sourcing seems clean good, though there is also inconsistency in linking Kishimoto, Masashi. Should all be linked, if I'm not mistaken, along with Viz Media, Shueisha, and other publishers. There does seem to be a fairly limited set of sources, though. Almost all either the primary work and its subworks (art books, et all), ANN, and AoD. I know this is fairly normal for anime/manga articles, especially for lesser know series, but with its popularity in the US, I'm suprised Naruto isn't covered in more places?
  • I don't know whether it should all be linked or just one. I'm leaning towards the former. And yeah, I know the reception is a bit limited - I've had some difficulty finding some reviews. You're more than welcome to incorporate stuff if you can find it.

And, as it with everything I review, I encourage having it copyedited. :) Hope this helps some. Will be watching with curiosity as the peer review progresses.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 (talk · contribs)
  • My main point is the one that we have been working on since last year: merge. Tsunade (Naruto) does not have the requirements to pass notability, so I guess it should be merged.Jiraiya (Naruto) now seems to pass notability so it seems fine to keep it. Another thing: should Akatsuki keep their own section since they have been merged? If not maybe we could replace Others with Legendary Ninja or Sannin to add the three. Once I remember another thing I will add it, I also know some websites that we can use to increase the reception, do you want me to list them? Cheers.
Comments from Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs)

I haven't done a full read through yet, but here's what popped out at me that I think would be of concern at FLC.

  • The "Other characters" section should have some kind of text there. Any section in an articles requires content. And since this article is the general article about the Naruto characters, it makes sense to include a small section on minor characters.
  • An image of some of the merchandise wouldn't hurt and would be a nice addition to an article that can't have too many images because of NFC restrictions.
  • Other than ANN, I'm not familiar with the Anime and manga Project's list of reliable sources so don't take this wrong way. But what makes "T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews", "AnimeOnDVD", "Active Anime" and "Anime Boredom" reliable sources. I'd prepare a rationale to defend them if need be.

I hope this helps some. I'll try to do a full read through of the text, but with a couple of things on Wikipedia I've got backlogged and my real-life backlog, I may not have a chance to. I'll see if I can at least read through some. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Popping in to try to answer the last one some. AnimeOnDVD is a site with a 10+ year history in the Anime and manga arena, and is one of the most recognized anime sites out there by the industry. It is highly supported by the industry as a whole, its forums are frequented by representatives from most of the major anime/manga companies, and its reviews are often quoted in promotional materials and on the final DVD releases of titles. It is on par with ANN (and at times above, as only its forums are user submitted content). Active Anime is another news site, similar to ANN, that also does reviews. It has been given thumbs up from the industry as well, and has been quoted by ANN in the past. The other two...hmmm. THEM has been used quite in the project as bit as they have a good sized staff writing their reviews and the staff reviewers are carefully selected through a vigirous screening process and only as needed. Still, some might see it as iffy as they are not heavily quoted among other sites since they focus soley on reviews. I do, however, believe their reviews have been quoted in promotional materials as well. Anime Boredom, I can't really defend myself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut Anime Boredom. I thought it was a bit dubious from the start. And yeah, I know for the "Other characters" section there needs to be text, but part of the discussion I wanted to engender here was how they should be summarized? I was originally thinking of brief one-liners separated by say in-universe geographic location similar to Characters of Kingdom Hearts as one idea. I toyed with the idea of merging the other list in and cutting out extra characters, but it would really make the list overly long (probably 90-100k at that point). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with Anime Boredom. It's a review site like any other (AnimeonDVD or Active Anime). They have editors checking on the staff's reviews and are accurate. They also have a good number of interviews with representatives from anime/manga companies. The site meets the requirements asked by the guidelines and policy so there's no actual reason to cut it. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_Naruto_characters/archive1&oldid=1138563186"