This article is about Moto Hagio's seminal manga series The Heart of Thomas, noted as one of the earliest manga in the shōnen-ai (male-male romance) genre. Much of this article is sourced from User:Lady freyja's excellent article written for the French Wikipedia (fr:Le Cœur de Thomas), which itself is a featured article. I improved this article after avoiding The Heart of Thomas for many years; though I write primarily about manga and LGBT topics on Wikipedia and recognized the series' influence in the medium, I falsely assumed it was merely another dated schoolboy romance narrative. Only upon reading it for the first time last year did I realize how incorrect my assumption was, and was able to appreciate what a truly compelling narrative The Heart of Thomas is. The Heart of Thomas is currently a good article (review here), and is queued to appear on DYK on January 13 (nomination here). This is my second featured article nomination, following Stucky (fandom). Morgan695 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Demian_Erstausgabe.jpg is incorrectly tagged and missing information on the original source
I corrected the source information, can you clarify how it is tagged incorrectly?
Under US law creating a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright, so the uploader would not be able to release the work under a free license in the US. (Depending on where they are the tag may be valid for that country). This needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added.
File:Birch_Little_Lord_Fauntleroy_add_Titre.png: if this is to be hosted on Commons, it needs to include copyright information for the source country as well as US
I couldn't find a French PD tag, but per the French source, the image is public domain ([2]).
File:Emil_Wolff-Eros-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg needs a US tag for the sculpture.
I have added a US tag.
Would also suggest cleaning up citation formatting before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have attempted to address the issues raised. Image usage tagging is not my area of expertise, so specific guidance on what is needed to make these images admissible would be appreciated. Can you also clarify what you mean by cleaning up the citation formatting? Morgan695 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently a lot of inconsistencies in how sources are being formatted - some books have locations while others don't, some short citations don't link correctly to the full source, some journals include publishers and others don't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Response above on images; I'll get started on formatting the references. Morgan695 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By request; I reviewed this article for DYK, and suggested that Morgan695 bring it here. I'm glad you're going to be working on standardizing the refs. I have a general comment: as per WP:PARAGRAPH, many of your paragraphs are too short. I think you could combine many of them, with better transitions. I think you could combine the first two paragraphs in the subsection "Production", since both are about Hagio's friendship with Takemiya, and how it affected Hagio's choice of genres. I'd also combine the two paragraphs in the subsection "Editions", making it into one longer paragraph, like this: Upon its conclusion, Shogakukan collected The Heart of Thomas into three tankōbon published in January, April and June 1975; they are respectively numbers 41, 42 and 43 of the Flower Comics collection. The series has been regularly re-printed by Shogakukan. In the West, The Heart of Thomas was not published until the 2010s. On September 14, 2011, Fantagraphics Books announced that it had acquired the license to The Heart of Thomas for release in North America. The single-volume hardcover omnibus, translated into English by Rachel Thorn, was released on January 18, 2013. I think these are things you could do throughout the article, to make the prose tighter and more encyclopedic. Other than that, which is easily fixable, this is a beautiful article, with lots of potential. It could be the rare Wikipedia article that could make an impact, and serve as an example of other articles like it. Ganbatte! (Hope that's correct.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the recent changes and improvements made to this article, I gladly give it my SUPPORT.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend using a full stop after this sentence: The series was originally developed by Hagio as a personal project that she did not expect would ever be published;
"It inspired multiple subsequent works" - don't need "subsequent" here
"with a total of 33 weekly chapters" - don't need "a total of" here
"The film was subsequently adapted into a novel" - don't need "subsequently"
"but as a sacrifice in order to free Juli’s repressed emotions" - don't need "in order to"
"Hagio initially relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school; she ultimately decided the environment was too restrictive" - might sound simpler as: Hagio relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school, but decided the environment was too restrictive.. Thanks LM150 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a very good work. The most eye-catching aspect of it is the shorteness of "Reception and legacy". Surprisingly, there's only one review of the 2013 release (done by Welker—and in regards to citing him, there are two different "Walker 2015", the Mechamedia article and the University Press of Mississippi book, so you should distinguish them by naming them diferently [like Walker 2015a and Walker 2015b]). Did you take a look at other reviews by Anime News Network[3] (one of them by famous Jason Thompson[4]), ComicsAlliance[5], Comics Worth Reading [6], Fantasy Book Review [7] (seems like a blog, but reviewer Sandra Scholes used to write for ActiveAnime, which is fine, according to our WikiProject), Hooded Utilitarian [8] (reviewer Ng Suat Tong is contributor of The Comics Journal), Manga Bookshelf [9], and Publishers Weekly[10]. I don't know if you have already consulted these sources; if yes, you can ignore my commentary (but at least it will be registered here). If no, although I know scholars are preferred over common reviewers, maybe they can be useful to write at least a paragraph with an overall assessment by English-language critics. Last but no least, since you translated parts of it from the French FA counterpart (as you say), according to WP:TFOLWP, the inclusion of this template in the talkpage for atributtion would be nice. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've distinguished the Welker sources and added the translation attribution page. Thank you for gathering the reviews; I'll ping you when I've expanded the section. Morgan695 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel Yuji: I've expanded the article with some reviews. I intentionally didn't include the Ng Suat Tong review; while I think it would be valuable to include a dissenting review, Tong is something of an Armond White-style professional contrarian, so I'm generally not convinced his analysis is valuable. Morgan695 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the article and making some small grammatical adjustments, mostly regarding commas, I have decided to give this nomination my Support. Great job with the article! Link20XX (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see this hasn't received much attention; I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll try leaving a useful review. Please feel free to revert or discuss any copyedits I make as I read. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is the selection of secondary characters listed here made?
The four primary characters are central to the series' narrative, form the bulk of the series' focus, and each are the subject of a narrative arc in the story. (Though Thomas is dead for the majority of the series, he is the titular character, and his death is the inciting incident for the plot of the book.) The secondary characters have comparably incidental appearances and/or primarily exist to develop the character arc of one of the primary characters.
I think perhaps my question wasn't clear; the choice of primary characters seems fine, based on the synopsis; but how did you choose which secondary characters to list, and which to leave out completely? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary characters listed make multiple appearances or impact the primary characters in a major way; there are more secondary characters in the series (the Japanese article has a fairly exhaustive list that includes every single character, even those that make one-off or inconsequential appearances), but I personally think to list every single character in the series would err on the side of WP:NOTDIR).
"shojo manga" needs a link and an explanation where first mentioned in the body.
Done.
It would also be helpful to know how Hagio's work deviated from the norm in style.
Added a brief section about the traits of typical shojo manga of the era. The subsequent text explains how her style differed, e.g. narratively complex stories that focused on social issues and sexuality, further genres, male protagonists, etc.
I'm curious why the term "homoeroticism" isn't used for "same-sex romance" and it's equivalents; there's an article for it, too...
Swapped.
I think "one-shot" could use a gloss; it's something of a technical term.
Done.
The content about The November Gymnasium is somewhat repetitive; I think it's best confined to the production subsection, with the later section reserved for sequels.
I think it's helpful to reiterate its existence in that section, as it is a work that is distinct from the main series, but that is still a "related work".
Here, I disagree. I think mentioning it multiple times, but as it is there's almost a short paragraph that's essentially duplicated. Given that you have no other "related works" besides sequels, you could retitle that section, and omit The November Gymnasium; but at the very least you should be summarizing that material into a short sentence rather than two long ones. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever reviewers/commentators are introduced, a gloss would be helpful; are they scholars, reviewers, authors, publishers?
I think I've glossed them all now.
"Juli's ability to overcome this trauma through his friendship with Oskar is Erich" grammatically something is off here
Fixed.
"Midori Matsui interprets Hagio's decision in terms of Freudian psychoanalysis" can you elaborate on this at all? It doesn't seem especially related to the second half of that sentence.
"free herself from the constraints of patriarchy, Hagio rejects all forms of sexual difference" it isn't clear how the story actually is constrained by gender in any way; do the sources elaborate on this?
This was an AGF translation from the French Wikipedia; as it isn't necessarily clear to me either and this is the only place in the article the Matsui source is cited, I've just removed it.
The influence of the Bildungsroman is mentioned in the production section, but coming of age, and/or the resolution of trauma, isn't discussed much in the themes section, which surprised me.
I suppose this is because coming of age and the resolution of trauma is less thematic and more just direct plot, e.g. the story focuses on these characters resolving their traumas and maturing into young men. To restate it here would effectively just be repeating plot.
I disagree somewhat. The plot does not discuss how their trauma is resolved; indeed, saying that they are in the plot, without further detail, is verging on squeezing analysis into the plot. If the sources don't analyze this in further detail, that's fine, but we shouldn't be omitting it just because it's implied in the plot. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Heart of Thomas heavily influenced Hagio's 1992 manga series" I think this is an odd way of expressing the idea; Hagio can't really influence her own work. I would suggest rewording; perhaps "of The Heart of Thomas are also present in..."
Done.
The reviews cited all seem to be contemporary; are there no reviews available from when the series was first released, including in Japanese? I recognize that accessing these might be difficult, but relying entirely on English-language commentary when the series was made popular in Japan doesn't seem quite right...
I added some contemporary Japanese reviews but yes, I was unable to find reviews of the series from the 1970s. Hopefully the details given throughout the article regarding its production and release – that it was poorly received upon its initial serialization, that the success of Hagio's The Poe Clan led to a critical re-assessment of the series, that it concluded its serialization as one of the most popular series in Shūkan Shōjo Comic – provide enough context to give a sense of how the series was assessed upon its initial release.
This might be my own OR leaking in, but one of the things Thorn talks about in her discussion of how The Heart of Thomas was among the first manga to be released as a tankōbon (collected edition) was that prior to the ubiquity of tankōbon releases for manga, manga was largely seen as disposable – e.g., you would read a serialized chapter of a manga in a manga magazine, then dispose of the magazine. The serious study of manga as an art form wasn't really institutionalized until the founding of Comiket in 1975, so it may very well be that there is limited/no critical analysis of the series at the time it was released. Morgan695 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews by Fasulo and Pigeat aren't used; if they're good sources, I'd suggest using them; otherwise, you should drop them altogether.
Removed.
In isolation, these removals are okay, but along with Matsui above, these are now three a priori decent sources that aren't used; is there no material in them that is worthwhile? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to acess the Matsui source, but I found a source citing Matsui that I believe captures her central point. The Pigeat source is a brief review that mostly just discusses plot and Hagio's art style. Fausto is an offline source, so I am unable to verify its notability; I will note that both Pigeat and Fausto are included because they were listed in the French Wikipedia article, but that article similarly also merely lists these sources and does not actually cite them.
That's it from me; most of the comments are prose fixes, but the comments about the themes and Japanese sources are important, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starting response, will ping you when I'm done. Morgan695 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I see you've already started your response, but my notes are above. Morgan695 (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting
Your linking of publishers throughout the references is all over the place; it doesn't what approach you take, it just has to be consistent. E.g. link all publishers every time, link the first time, or link none at all. Example of error: Fantagraphics Books is linked (almost) every time but National Diet Library is only linked the first time
Standardized.
References
Okay, so, when we have multiple pages, we generally use "pp." instead of "p."—I would adjust this on refs 15 & 49
Done.
For page ranges (ref 13), use – not a dash (-)
Done.
optional: suggest adding a translated title parameter for the titles of Japanese sources "|trans-title="
Done.
missing retrieval dates for ref 11 & 20
Added.
Bibliography
I see that you're putting two refs next to each other from the same book, I see the intent here, but I'm not sure it necessary. I suggest either alphabetizing them correctly or having something like this:
McLelland, Mark; Nagaike, Kazumi; Katsuhiko, Suganuma; Welker, James (eds.). Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi
Suzuki, Kazuko (2015). "What Can We Learn from Japanese Professional BL Writers?: A Sociological Analysis of Yaoi/BL Terminology and Classifications". In McLelland, Mark; Nagaike, Kazumi; Katsuhiko, Suganuma; Welker, James (eds.). Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. pp. 93–118.
Welker, James (2015a). "A Brief History of Shōnen'ai, Yaoi and Boys Love". In McLelland, Mark; Nagaike, Kazumi; Katsuhiko, Suganuma; Welker, James (eds.). Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. pp. 42–75.
Done.
Reliability
Looks OK–given the topic, I'm inclined to show some leniency towards places like Anime News Network, as they seem to be an authority on the subject
Verifiability
Are there any identifiers (OCLC, ISBN, ISSN, doi etc.) that could be added to Suzuki or Welker to increase verifiability? Aza24 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
@Aza24: Response above. Obviously the FAC is closed, but I do intend to re-nominate this article, so it would be ideal if this could be sorted now so it would be ready for the next FAC. Thank you for taking this up. Morgan695 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nom has been open six weeks and though several people have stopped by, it hasn't attractd the depth of commentary I'd have hoped for at this point so I'm going to archive and ask that further work be done outside the FAC process prior to another nom after the usual minimum of two weeks has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: This feels like a premature decision that I strongly disagree with, considering it's not even the oldest nomination on the page and your decision to close came a mere 40 minutes after User:Vanamonde93 responded to my comments from a week ago, precluding my ability to respond. Also somewhat frustrating that User:Aza24's decision to claim the source review and then not actually complete it likely influenced your decision to archive. My previous nomination in the FA space went a full seven weeks and had fewer reviews, so I'm a little confused by the rush to archive. Morgan695 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my–I'm so sorry, I seem to have not added it to my to do list (which is how I usually keep track of source reviews I'm doing; I just got your ping so I'm seeing this now) I can do it right now regardless so you'll have it for this nom or the next if it's archived. Aza24 (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.