Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Yotsuba&! chapters/archive1

List of Yotsuba&! chapters[edit]

Requesting feedback especially from anyone who participated in the FLCs of List of Claymore chapters and the Naruto chapter lists. In trying to follow those best practices, we've had to adapt the format quite a bit: for example, Yotsuba&! volumes don't have titles nor a summarizable continuing plot, and there's other information there's no space for, such as the date a chapter takes place. Any insight from those who've been through the process and can identify what's essential to getting a list of manga chapters to FL greatly appreciated. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I fulfill your request since I wrote a big chunk of those and nominated all four :p. As for the table, I think the same table can be used, just change the fields at the top to reflect your adaptations. If volume number and dates are all that you have, then that's all that you have. Furthermore, it makes the table looks continuous over the page, which looks better. I don't like the story date field, as it's just an in-universe detail, and a reviewer at WP:FLC would likely ask for it to be removed. The images should be removed per fair use concerns. Place a collection box (here) or the first volume of the manga (here) in the lead. As for the lead, try to expand it a bit, following the style of List of Naruto chapters (Part I) or List of Naruto chapters (Part II). Nice work though. A good push and it can get FL status without much incident. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for plot summaries, how can it not be summarized? Even if it isn't continuous, you can still summarize the individual chapters as a whole fairly effectively, using a sentence or two for each. It will be a bit long, but you can explain your rationale in that you're discussing all the chapters, as you have no continuous plot to work off. One of the complaints raised at the FLCs for the aforementioned chapter lists was initially the lack of plot summaries, and I can see it being raised again in this case. As for when the chapter takes place, it was decided that such data was ultimately unnecessary and did not need to be included. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick -- thankee. Gotcha about the covers; up to the lead goes volume 1. And I'll see what I can do about a sentence per chapter. For the volume titles, what do you suggest mechanically? Omitting those cells entirely or always filling them with a em-dash? --and if the former, what do with the space?
For the dates, though, I'm gonna get resistant. For one thing, it's not just an "in-universe detail" -- the slow pace of daily life as a five-year-old, and that chapters take place on successive or near-successive days, is mentioned in reviews. Not to mention is part of the ancillary material from the publisher. This is a slice-of-daily-life series set in a specific time and place, following the rhythm of the weeks and seasons. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another question: how essential is that cover character thing anyway? Because for this, it's all Yotsuba, all the time. Not exactly a distinguishing feature of the volumes. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omit the cells entirely. No need for a field you never use. As for the dates, it only becomes relevant if it provide the reader with a better context of the chapter they are reading. In this case, it doesn't, and unless it's important to the plot of that episode (special holiday or something), then it shouldn't be included. It will likely be shot down as indiscriminate information in a FLC nomination. Ergo, if the relevancy is present, include it in the plot summary. If not, exclude it. As for the cover character, you can exclude it so long as a mention is made in the lead or somewhere else that Yotsuba is present on all the covers. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sample of swotting this up in the sandbox -- how would this work for handling the ISBNs? (Frankly, I don't like the separation of ISBN and pub date in the current examples -- coming from the industry, they're rather tied together in my mind and ought to be handled with similar formatting.) Still thinking about the date thing, since it really is part of the context for the reader. I take the article's lead isn't enough to explain why they're included? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it would be better off with the dates removed. The biggest problem is that it gives the impression that those dates relate to the date the chapter came out rather than the in-universe date, and it is confusing to a reader, even if they read a notice in the lead. As for the table, it looks fine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "This allows the appearance of products created after 2003, such as the Nintendo DS Mr. Ayase plays in chapter 42." is too specific and should be removed. Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told, though I cannot find the talk page at the moment, that that detail is from the interview mentioned immediately before. I'll find someone who knows Japanese to either confirm or deny it -- because if so, the reference ought to move to the end of the paragraph, and if not, then yeah, that's unsourced speculation and needs to go. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]