I believe all the points asked in the previous nom have been adressed. Specifically, print sources have been added, several experienced editors copyedited the article, character design has been expanded, and the video game has been cut off to its own article. IMO, this is a thorough, well written article on a particularly difficult subject. Even thought wikipedia is not censored, an effort has been made to keep the article relatively spoiler-free and out of universe. Reception section could be expanded as more sources are available, but I'm afraid this would set the article off-balance. Thanks for your interest.--SidiLemine 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why are you several times linking to Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia? --Peter Andersen 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Wiktionary links are informative. The link to artifact clears up any confusion on meaning and its alternative spelling and the link to blasé explains what it means concisely. The link to charm on Wict. is better than a link to amulet which is where you end up after the disambiguation page for charm. --Squilibob 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Too much white space in the characters section. Avoiding being overly detailed, but give enough text to line up with the images provided at least. This pretty much means a little less than doubling each characters' blurb.--SeizureDog 12:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would it be possible to put half the pictures on one side and half on the other (alternating)? That might solve the problem of white space and might even look better. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what was originally done, but a user chenged it to this to align with other articles of the same kind. I'll change it back to see if it solves the problem.--SidiLemine 13:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did this, but they don't overlap like they should. Anyone can advise what to do to get rid of that white space?--SidiLemine 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a try at fixing it. Less whitespace, but it's still there. --Squilibob 14:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- yup, definitely gonna have to add to eiri, alice and taro.--SidiLemine 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Ibelive this issue adressed.--SidiLemine 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — much improved since last FAC. — Deckiller 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article is very well done and well referenced. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, my comments were addressed last time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Supernumerary 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, the article might still use some expansion, but what is there looks already fit for FA. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the writing needs some work. In places it feels too conversational, and occasionally seems unclear or clumsy ("Lain draws influence from philosophical subjects"; "who has his own agenda that he carries through"; "many acceptations of the term"; "no surprise that definite influences are scarce at best"). It also includes some purple prose ("The first ripple on the pond of Lain's lonely life"; "her cold-as-ice mother"), however that's not necessarily a problem. Why does "war of ideas" need a (sic)? I think these things could quickly be resolved by a copy-editor (or two) familiar with the subject giving the article a brush-up. In general, a very good piece of work on a subject I know zip about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't really copyediting issues; they are mainly content issues, so I can't help there, since I've never seen the show. Also, a lot of those unclear statements are in the lead, and developed in later sections, as far as I see. — Deckiller 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem with those statements is how they are written as opposed to how clear they are. Same goes for "His relation to Lain is a mixture of fatherly authority and distant fear" and "She is the one to first try to break Lain's shell ...", "Mika is considered by some the only normal member...", and "He has been depicted as a "techno punk teenager" by some...". All four have been added to the article in the last day which is a shame because it is delaying this FAC. --Squilibob 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That explains it. I never really noticed most of those weasel/peacock terms and sentences, because they were added recently. They should be omitted; it's never a good idea to put filler in. — Deckiller 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as before. --Cat out 09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Much better now. Note that I removed a seemingly contradictory statement.[1] as well as changing the lead to summarize more.[2] --GunnarRene 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I jut added a ((who)) tag to a statement about English language reviewers. This statement was not attributed or cited.--ZayZayEM 03:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]