Talk:Wolf's Rain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Article milestones
February 20, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Manga "gropes"

Chapter means a section in a printed work. Grope means to fondle someone in a sexual way. So, why is "grope" more accurate than "chapter"? Astronaut (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Grope is what they are called in the manga, and as the note in the section says "grope" is a reference to a Japanese phrase for arriving somewhere after enduring hardships. Hence it being used in the article. With most manga, they are called chapters. However, as with Wolf's Rain, they are sometimes called something else, such as in Kare Kano where the Chapters are are called Acts, or they aren't numbered but instead given individual titles such as in Love Mode and Imadoki. To be the most true to the material, we list them using the official English term and/or name (when there is one), or the Japanese one when there isn't. Hope that helps. If I could find a site giving the kanji names, I'd add that along with the kanji for grope to make it clearer that it is a Japanese term, but so far no luck.Collectonian (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I really should read it more carefully and check out the references before I assume the worst and "correct" what I assume is some low level vandalism. For the second time in 24 hrs, I stand corrected. Astronaut (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • grin* no problem. It is a rather unfortunately spelling :) Collectonian (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OVA

Where are the OVAs? --24.74.36.191 (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking how the OVAs are sold is not starting a chat room, this should be included. Besides, TheFarix, you can not go around erasing things on talk pages without good reason. --24.74.36.191 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"talk pages are about improving the article, not about how to "buy things"". I didn't ask how to but them, I know how to buy DVDs. The problem is that the article says that the final ending was released as OVAs. It is missing encyclopedic data. A positive answer to any of the following questions would improve the article:

  • Are the OVAs on the DVDs of the episodes released as volumes?
    • Are they on the same DVDs as the episodes, or Bonus DVDs?
    • Was it on the DVDs when they were originally released, or added later?
    • Are the OVAs spread out along the discs like the OVAs that came with the four original .hack// games? Or are they all on the last disc?
    • Why are they not mentioned with the episodes outside of Wikipedia?
  • Are the OVAs on the "Wolf's Rain DVD Complete Collection" by Anime Legends?
    • Are they included separately, or not at all?
    • Was this collection made to include them, or where they included before?
    • Are they split between collection 1 and 2, or all on collection 2?
    • Why does the box not mention them?
  • Are they packaged separately?
    • What are they marketed as?
    • When were they released?
    • Where they exclusive? (Could only be found at an event, can only be found packaged with something else, limited time, etc.)
    • Where they ever shown on TV?

--24.74.36.191 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Farix, normally I'd agree, but his question actually did point out an embarrasingly glaring error in the article...I totally forgot to list the region 1 release. Anon user, I've expanded the article some and will work on filling that missing information, but to answer your question, for the Region 1 release, the OVAs were released as the seventh volume of the series by Bandai, and treated as part of the series. They are also in all of the complete collections, as episodes 26-30. They were aired in the US as part of Wolf's Rain run (though the four re-cap episodes were not), however they were not aired in Japan (of course). See List of Wolf's Rain episodes for the airdates. Collectonian (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually episodes 27-30 - episode 26 was the last regular broadcast episode. In Britain the OVA episodes were broadcast on Rapture TV, but not in the later broadcast by AnimeCentral. Lee M (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have signed in earlier, but I have a policy against signing into anything while connected to a public wireless hot spot with no security. I didn't know they had done any OVAs till I had read about them in the opening paragraph of this article. I read the entire article and some of the pages linked to it. I then checked some retailers like RightStuf, and by the time I posted on this talk page, I thought the OVAs were a hoax or just someone's wishfull thinking since there has been plenty of animes that just leave you hanging. --MahaPanta (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Hopefully its a little clearer. I'm still working on the episode list, but it will note the OVAs as well and the full DVD release info. Part of the reason its hard to tell with retailers because no one outside of Japan seems to have marked them as OVA at all, but instead included them as part of the series regular episodes. Collectonian (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"no one outside of Japan seems to have marked them as OVA at all, but instead included them as part of the series regular episodes." That really should be noted because I thought I was being ripped off since my copy doesn't mention that the last episodes are the OVA. The reason I think this is so important to know is because it would be like thinking the last 15 pages are missing of your favorite book/manga because the publisher typed the wrong page count in the book's description. This happened to be with a graphic novel. --MahaPanta (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Story?

I read somewhere this is a Russian folk story, being Russian and making it the focus of all my studies I just want to know if anyone has some proof that is/isn't the case?

Thanks!--67.185.245.221 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Never heard anything about it, and never seen anyone try to say it was. If it is, there is little to no proof available, at least not in English. Might have to check some Japanese sites. Collectonian (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to sleuth this because it sure would be neat if it was, now I have to know! Worst case scenario I will have to find out this summer when I am there. I guess that isn't exactly wiki-quality standards but at least I will know heh. It seems likely since on many sites it's alternative title is given in Russian, which doesn't seem ordinary for anime, also read it was shown in Russia. The part I read was a review of it said like "This classic Russian tale told through Japanese anime..." or something, and someone else reviewed it as a sort dark and depressing story method typical of Russian folklore (his words).--67.185.245.221 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

I am starting the review process with the quick fail criteria, then moving point-by-point through the GA criteria. Any comments or responses are welcome -Âme Errante (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Quick-fail: ; Did not fail the quick-fail criteria. The Reception section does contain some strong praise, so I'll check those sources mentioned and others to make sure that this is well founded and not soapbox / POV. < Discussed below

Editor's Note: I know that the authors of this article have put a lot of effort into crafting and revising the content, and the fact that I am so nitpicky in my review is not meant to diminish this effort, nor to lead you to believe that this is a bad article. Rather, I think the article is quite well written, balanced, concise, and NPOV. I have been very careful in my review, noting even minor problems, because I believe that I owe you no less; to give the article a quick skim rather than a thorough review would not be fair to the amount of work you have already put in, in my opinion. Just because I have noted a problem below, does not mean that I'll refuse the GA nomination based on this problem. I've tried to state which things are major issues and which are minor problems.

  • 1. Prose: ; For the most part very good, but some major issues remain
  • Overall, the introduction is good. However, I would suggest you reference the reception if you are going to spend so long talking about it later.
  • I would suggest linking to an article that explains the concept of OVAs the first time this is introduced.
  • I have fixed a number of minor spelling errors throughout the piece... nothing too major, but it does make me wonder how thoroughly the article was checked before it was submitted to GA.
  • It was checked, but as the main editor and main checker, I've probably missed stuff. Unfortunately, the request for a copyedit sat unanswered for months at LoCE. I'll see if I can get a copy editor to give it another going over.Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This article links to a 'Characters' article as a main article and (presumably) the source for the section on characters (no other reference is provided in this section). Because of this, the related 'Characters' article definitely needs to be cleaned up before Wolf's Rain is considered for GA status. It doesn't need to be perfect, just address the banners at the top of the page.
  • I disagree. There is no requirement that a subarticle be well done before its main can be a GA. There are plenty of GA's with bad character lists (or worse, lots of character articles). Fixing the character list is on my list of things to do, but I don't think that means it should be required to be done before this can be GA. I'll add the needed references for this section, though. Will that take care of the problem? Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the list of characters, what is basis for using katakana, rather than hiragana, to spell out the names?
  • That is how they are listed on the official website. I've cleaned up the added parenthetical stuff though.Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The anime section is nice and factual. It's good to leave the list of episodes to another article, as we already have a plot outline above. However, I believe that you should do the same with the table listing chapters in the manga section (make it into its own article, or remove it). The text is mentioned above in 'differences', and the chapter listings can easily be condensed into a paragraph or even a sentence or two.
  • Doing so would violate the MoS. Its only two volumes and not long enough to support having its own article. The way it is now is in keeping with our Anime and manga MoS.Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • with the usual Viz banners added to... - What are the 'Viz banners'? Why is this important to this article? I would suggest deleting this sentence, as it sounds like trivia. A once-over on the article to remove similar trivial things (i.e. things that don't add to the understanding of the topic Wolf's Rain) would be nice.
  • moderate success, considered a hit - Avoid weasel words. What makes a hit? Is it lots of viewers, good money for the studio? Who decides which shows are good and which ones bad? Don't talk about strong appeal without giving me some facts or an actual measure of appeal. See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words.
  • Removed "moderate success". Fixed "a hit" to use direct quote. "Strong appear" is also a direct quote, but was missing its quote marks. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The following is a very long sentence, and should be revised: "Reviewers of the Region 1 DVD volume containing the four episodes recommended it be left unbought and skipped as a waste of money, though Bandai's release of the episodes was also considered an improvement over the Japanese release of the series which had the recapitulation episodes spread over two DVDs requiring them to be bought to get the new episodes on the same volumes."
  • The section on critical reception probably shouldn't be so long. While the wording seems fairly balanced (though by no means perfect) and NPOV, the length of the section suggests Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. In a nutshell, I don't believe that the reception is more important than the plot in understanding this anime, yet plot is a slightly less lengthy section than reception.
  • That does not mesh with the anime and manga MoS, nor the Wikipedia emphasis on its real-world aspects rather than the plot and in-universe/fictional aspects.
  • In general, the article is organized well, with a good table of contents and good sections. Wikilinks are provided for subjects when they are first introduced, and covers jargon, company names, etc. One complaint is that the section on 'changes in manga adaptation' feels out of place between plot and characters, which together introduce the series. I would suggest moving this either below the 'characters' section as its own section (since it references changes in characters in addition to changes in plot), or, more preferable, to the section that deals with the manga.
  • Again, the section is appropriately placed per the anime and manga MoS.Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Had to fix one error with tense, but overall article sticks to present tense, and when it uses past tense it is not distracting.
  • 2. Links and References: ; Many issues remain
  • There are no sources for the introduction. It is probably not necessary to source things like plot and episode length, but would be nice to pull some references for licensing/distribution information, the statement about the manga being a retelling, etc.
  • A lead should never need sourcing. Anything in the lead should be sourced within the article, as everything in the lead should be. If there is something in the lead that is not referenced within the article, please let meknow.Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you should link to the articles on Paradise and Wolves, as these are generally understood subjects and have specific uses in the anime.
  • Removed...hold overs from before I started working on the article. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I found a reference to an article that has nothing to do with Wolf's Rain. This is a big one, considering the potential POV and weasel wording of the associated sentence: It is considered a major hit amongst manga that are adapted from an anime series.
  • Fixed...added quote from source that does support, and fixed wording. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed that at the bottom of the 'reception' section, a quote is summarized and then immediately displayed as a block quote. I would suggest you stick with the summarized sentence and remove the block quote, as you already have a block quote by the same author, from the same website.
  • On the same note, 13 references (1/3 of the total) are from the Anime News Network, and many more are from similar sites that cater to an anime fan-base. This article needs to have a wider range of sources, and specifically some sources that aren't geared towards fans. As ANN itself states, "The vast majority of visitors to Anime News Network are over the age of 18 and, needless to say, they're all anime fans[...]" [1]
  • There are only a handful of English anime news sites that meet those requirements, ANN, ICv2, and AnimeOnDVD.com being the ones most often used. All three are industry supported and meet all requirements for being a reliable source. There are a few statements that can be referenced from other sites, like the official site, as well, so I've updated those.Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 3:Breadth ; After fixes as noted
  • For the most part, this article is concise, and sticks to aspects relevent to the topic.
  • As noted above, there are several instances of trivial information, and a table that should either be relegated to a more in-depth article on the manga or removed. In addition, the section on reception is long compared to other sections in the article, and considering that reception is only somewhat important in understanding the topic.
  • I commend this article for avoiding the 'trivia' and 'cultural references' sections that plague so many similar articles.
  • Thanks :) That are usually one of the first things I ax when I work on series articles. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 4:NPOV ; problems are minor, but should be addressed
  • Overall, the article is very factual and does not drift into POV material. Very well written. However, there are a couple of concerns, especially with the 'reception' section, as noted above. In a nutshell, the article should avoid weasel words, and not give too much bias to certain sources.
  • 5:Stability
  • This article has been stable for the last month, and there don't seem to be any ongoing edits or major changes.
  • 6:Images
  • All images used in this article have fair use rationale or are in the public domain.
  • The article could probably use a couple more images to illustrate the anime, but this is a matter of taste and may not be possible due to copyright issues.

In summary, I am placing the nomination on hold, because I believe that these issues can be met in the week allowed for changes.-Âme Errante (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the GA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)