Your Lie in April

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

I've listed this article for peer review because, in short, I intend to bring it to FA status. I brought this to GA status in February 2021, and since then I have been cleaning it up and expanding it even more. I am aware a lot of work needs to be done, but I am prepared to do whatever it takes. Specifically, it would be nice if the lead, plot, and characters sections could be reviewed.

Thanks, Link20XX (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A general issue I find in this article is that most of these paragraphs are quite small. Imagine Wikipedia as a formal letter. The genre could also be mentioned in the lead section too.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Hi Link20XX, it's been over a month since this PR's last comment. Are you still interested in keeping this open? Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can close it. I was hoping for more comments, but that is unlikely at this point. Link20XX (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you did not get as many responses as you would have liked. A great way to get more comments on your articles is to also review articles; editors like it when people review and are more likely to help you out if you are helping others. I also encourage you to continue reviewing articles at FAC; it takes at least 5 reviews for an FAC to be promoted so I try to review 5 articles for every article I nominate. Reviewing also helps you understand the FAC criteria and what reviewers are looking for in your nomination. Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can always choose to keep this open and ask for feedback in Wikiprojects and from editors who have created similar articles. Since this is a PR, it is not considered canvassing to ask for opinions. If you choose to still close the PR, please ensure that it is also removed from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will try asking around a bit more, though I'm not sure what kind of commentary I could give in a WP:FAC. WP:ANIME currently has only 9 FAs and new ones are rarely nominated, and I don't know how qualified I am in other areas. Link20XX (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Link20XX: Every FAC needs at least one non-expert to review and support the nomination in order to be promoted. The non-expert is tasked with reviewing for WP:JARGON and to ensure that the article can be understood by non-expert readers. Also, non-experts can still look at reference formatting, image suitability and formatting concerns. When I review articles I am unfamiliar with, I make a note at the top that I am a non-expert reviewer so that the FAC co-ordinators know that I am reviewing from that perspective. I highly suggest that you jump on in and review non-expert articles. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. While you are here, care to leave any comments on this article? Link20XX (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a quick skim because I'm supposed to be doing something in real life, but procrastinating here...
  • Your characters section is quite long. Is it necessary to list all of them?
  • Refs need to be in numerical order (eg "with Kendo to help depict the tension at competitions.[10][9]")
  • Your media section is divided into numerous short paragraphs. Per MOS:OVERSECTION these shorter sections should be merged together. Perhaps Stage play and Musical can be merged into a section called "Stage adaptations" and the light novel section can possibly be merged with the manga section.
  • "The light novel retold the events of the main series from Kōsei's friends' and rivals' perspectives." This might need a citation.
  • Is this article about the manga series (print) or the anime series (TV/movie)? The article should pick one, write about that, and then establish another article for other medium if notable. This is especially relevant in the reception section, where only one medium's reception should be given.
  • Ref 76 links to medium.com, which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia.
Those are my thoughts. I hope they are helpful. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One last thought: The Heart of Thomas is a recently passed FA that I think is in the same category as this article. I suggest reading this and structuring your article along a similar structure. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, will address them soon. Link20XX (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, and thanks again for the comments. Removed the medium.com source (thought it was interesting for a musician's perspective on the series but its unreliable). I also fixed the ordering of some of the references and merged the sections, though on the topic of what it is about, I used the FA Naruto as a base for how to create and format that part of the article, since both are large franchises. The Heart of Thomas never got a full anime adaptation so it isn't quite the same situation. Link20XX (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and regarding that line about the light novel, I would say it falls under MOS:PLOTSOURCE since its just a summary and not referring to any specific lines. Link20XX (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is about a series, which includes a manga and an anime, then that needs to be stated in the first sentence. This allows the reader to know that this is an overarching article about all aspects of this manga. By mentioning the comic in the first paragraph, then the anime in the second, it confuses me (as a non-expert) about what this article is about. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am a bit confused with that comment. The anime is simply an adaptation, the manga was the original story, but anyway admittedly I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting. The aforementioned Naruto article does a lead in the same way. Link20XX (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Link20XX: Sorry for the confusion, I think I am getting my terminology mixed up. When I did my original skim, I thought this was an article about a printed book because the picture in the infobox is of a book cover, and the first line says, "a Japanese romantic drama manga (comic) series", which makes me think of Western comics like Garfield. I think the first line of the article needs to be clear that this is about the series as a whole and not a book/printed series. For example, the first line could say "Your Lie in April (Japanese: 四月は君の嘘, Hepburn: Shigatsu wa Kimi no Uso) is a Japanese romantic drama manga series written and illustrated by Naoshi Arakawa. The series includes a serialized comic manga, an anime television show and stage adaptations." Again, my terminology might be wrong so the example sentence might need to be fixed. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I tried my best to implement it. Link20XX (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: As someone far more experienced in the FA process, would you say that in the current state of the article, is it ready for a nomination? It has been cleaned up more since you last looked. Link20XX (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Link20XX, here are some additional comments:

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Much thanks for the additional thoughts! I addressed all of them except "The Anime section should include information on which studio developed the anime and how/when they obtained the rights to the manga", "Since Arakawa had previously used several locations along the Seibu Line," Were these locations used in the Your Lie in April manga book?", and "The anime section in media focuses a lot on who created the music for the anime. Is there other information to put in this section?", and I have yet to address reception. As for why the sources are reliable: Experiments in Manga: The review is written by Ash Brown, who works as a professional librarian (link) and also frequently writes for Manga Bookshelf, which is considered a reliable source by WP:ANIME (discussion). He has also been cited by Anime News Network (link). Manga Revue: Website is run by Katherine Dacey, who worked as an editor for Pop Culture Shock (considered reliable by WP:ANIME), and has been a panelist at New York Comic Con and WonderCon. She has also written for School Library Journal and written a book about manga published by Dark Horse Comics (source). As for Taykoban, another user below also has concerns, so I am okay with removing it. If a replacement is necessary, I found this from Kotaku, which is considered reliable by WP:VGRS. Link20XX (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FAC uses a higher bar than as a "reliable source". The sources provided must be of the highest-quality possible. When this question is asked at FAC, citing the editorial policies of the news organisation, the editorial policies of the publisher, and the credentials of the author are the best routes to take. I will address specific points below, which are my opinion:
  • Working as a professional librarian does not help their credentials as an expert in this field. ::*I am not sure that a citation by Anime News Network brings Brown to the status of a high-quality source.
  • What is the editorial policy of Manga Revue?
  • I am not sure if being a Comic-Con panelist is a good argument for high-quality.
  • Kotaku looks like a high-quality reliable source, as they have a masthead on their website, so I encourage their use.
I suggest looking at previous manga FACs and checking if these sources were challenged and kept. Looking at the nominator's explanation of their high quality will help craft the arguments that can be used in this FAC. Also check the arguments made at WP:VGRS that determined that these websites were reliable, as they can help explain the editorial policy of the source. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for Brown, he is a frequent writer for Manga Bookshelf (a reliable source by WP:ANIME) and has some WP:USEBYOTHERS. Manga Revue is also a one-person blog site, so that is the editorial policy. While Comic-Con panelist may not be a great argument, writing a book about manga published by a major comics publisher and writing for a notable publication both sound like good claims of reliability to me. In addition, upon doing some research into the writer of the Kotaku piece, he has also written multiple reviews for Anime News Network (1, 2). Link20XX (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Sorry for the lack of updates regarding progress and thanks so much for your comments. As for progress, I have removed the references to Taykoban and did my attempt at re-writing reception. I will be incorporating the Kotaku ref and a review of the anime I found in the April 2015 issue of Otaku USA soon. On another topic, I have added a bit to the development of the anime regarding rights to adapt it, and may expand it a bit more with more interviews I found recently. As for your other questions, I reworded the bit about the Seibu line as I couldn't find sources to back that locations were actually used in the series. As for the anime section of media, (as I am sure you are well aware by now) the series has a very heavy focus on music. The media section just addresses the staff and other basic information about a work, which in this case includes a lot about the music since that is a big part of the work. As for the plot section, you asked who Nagi Aiza is, but she has an entry in the character list below, which I believe is sufficient. Finally, I also recently found that Katherine Dacey's reviews have also been mentioned in The New York Times (link). Once again, thank you so much for your great help and many comments! Ping me for any questions or further comments. Link20XX (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Link20XX, this PR has been open since June and hasn't received a comment since September 19 (almost a month ago). Normally PRs are not open this long, especially when they have received this many comments and haven't been active in a month. Are you still actively seeking reviewers, or do you think it's ready for its FAC? Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I would say I'm done actively seeking reviewers. If I may ask, can you do one more brief look over before this is closed? Link20XX (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a second look:

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shooterwalker

Going to work my way through this article, focused mostly on the prose. Feel free to WP:IGNORE any of these suggestions if they don't improve the article.
Lead
Plot
Characters
Development
Media
Reception
The article is in generally good shape and with these changes will be closer to what you might see at a good article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Thanks for the comments! I addressed most of them as much as I could. As for the characters, I would say a list with a bit of detail is best per MOS:A&M "Page layout for a series article" section. As for Taykoban, I used it since their reviews of Your Lie in April were quoted by Kodansha USA on the back of their release of Sayonara, Football (another manga series by the same author). Any other comments? Link20XX (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No major comments. Perhaps you use the word "praise" too often in the last paragraph, but it is tricky to find appropriate substitutes. I'm still a little hesitant about "Matt from Taykoban" as a source, and the character section is out of step with other anime good articles. But all of those can be worked on through the ordinary editing process, let alone a WP:FA review if and when you're ready. The article looks better on the whole. Great job! Shooterwalker (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will do more work in the near-future. Link20XX (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very-late comment, but I wanted to ask if you have any more comments now that I have finished creating articles for more of the staff for the anime adaptation. Link20XX (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by kettleonwater

I don't really have much to give back, but I felt like I should leave something since you did peer review on my article.

Overall
Development
Media

That's about it! This looks like a very good article, and cause of that I don't really have much else to add that hasn't already been said. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

I'll give my two-penny on this.

The Penguin Random House links, are they suitable? Is that the book's Western publisher? If you're using a book store, it's better to use the store page of the publisher themselves, but I'm not sure how that would do in an FAR.

That's what stood out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category