Talk:Phantom Blood

Phantom Blood has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 15, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Phantom Blood appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 November 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the character posings in the manga Phantom Blood were influenced by the sculpture Apollo and Daphne (pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phantom Blood.

Wikipedia

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Untitled[edit]

To anyone who cares enough to edit this article, you should remove the external link at the bottom of the page: www.jojo-movie.com is now a Japanese porn site and has nothing to do with the JoJo series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.104.70 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character Names[edit]

I get you guys are really picky about providing sources for things, but are you REALLY going to try and argue that a group of four characters who have the same names as all of the members of Led Zeppelin are NOT named after Led Zeppelin? Or that a character whose name romanizes to "Tompetti" ISN'T a reference to the lead singer of the Heartbreakers? 74.215.30.124 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phantom Blood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
As the character list is very short, it would probably be a better idea to simply merge it to the plot section; additionally, a link to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters should be added to the section. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
This is exactly what I initially wanted to do, but I worried that editors who love listing fictional elements would immediately revert a change like that (which I see happening a ton in anime/manga articles) - so yes, I'm happy to do this. Regarding the JoJo character list, I've added it, but I don't really think that list even has any reason to exist - it just consists of summaries of each JoJo part with links to the character sections in each part's article.--IDV^talk 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Considering the manga's age, the amount of Japanese coverage included is probably good enough; had this been newer, a more even mix of Japanese and English reception would have been required. ~~However, see the above comment regarding characters.~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was difficult to find much Japanese reception at all - I don't know what Japanese manga coverage was like back in the 1980s, but if it exists it is probably only in print magazines.--IDV^talk 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~Just resolve the minor issue raised above and this will be a pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the review! I have added the link to the character list, and merged the character section into the plot summary.--IDV^talk 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issues raised have been resolved, and thus I'm pleased to say that this is a pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English chapters[edit]

I want to point out that the current chapters listed in each volume of the "2002 re-release" section do not match up to the chapters in the hardcover Viz volumes. There are two three-volume editions of Part 1, a 2002 bunkoban and the 2013 JoJonium. Therefore I think it is safe to assume the current chapters listed match the 2002 release, not the JoJonium. This makes it incorrect to put the English release dates to these volumes. Xfansd (talk)

Oh, I was under the impression that the part 1 JoJonium release was a straight reprint of the 2002 volumes (with new covers). Feel free to fix this, otherwise I'll do it when I have the time.--IDV^talk 15:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Phantom Blood (film) into Phantom Blood[edit]

There is not enough coverage to justify a separate article for the film. A selective merge would be appropriate. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre Ethnocentrism[edit]

The reception section of this article predominantly cites western reactions to the 2014 re-releases of Phantom Blood, without considering Japanese sources, the contemporary reactions to its 1987 debut, or its impact on the industry in general. Further, the cherry-picked reactions chosen to represent the critical opinion of the manga are overwhelmingly negative. I'm not sure whether this is the work of someone with an extremely limited frame of reference for appraising Japanese manga, or someone who has a bone to pick with shōnen manga in general, but this does not give an unbiased look at the reception and continuing legacy of the JoJo saga's debut.

A wider range of reviews with a heavier emphasis on contemporary reactions over western re-evaluations of the work would be desirable here.

2001:2003:F0A1:2700:1DD1:B278:D60A:7153 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one who wrote the reception section, and no, I do not have an agenda against shonen, JoJo, manga or whatever - I love comics and am a fan of the series - rather, it was difficult to find many reviews of Phantom Blood at all, and I had to just make use of the ones that I could find. I really do want to include more Japanese reviews, and more contemporary reviews, but I do not have access to Japanese magazines from the 1980s that review manga. If you have access to those, please share so we can fill in the gap.--Alexandra^IDV 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to assume good faith when editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia must be written according to what reliable sources can verify, so a much more likely conclusion would simply be that so far “English language writers only have had access to English language sources”, especially considering there’s no evidence of any malice or purposeful removal on the talk page or page history. These sorts of things happen. I contribute to many 90s rock related album articles myself. It would be better if I could write according to more 1990s print magazines. But I don’t have access to them. So I can only do what I can with what I’ve got. Feel free to try to contribute yourself though, if you have access to different sources though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]