Talk:Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing for a review. I will not be able to get to this until later in the week though. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

For the first sentence, please add Japanese to the parenthesis to make the language clear. See Allen Walker for what I mean.
I have two comments on this sentence (Concerned about the identity of her absent father, Sasuke Uchiha, and whether or not Sakura Uchihais her true mother, she goes on a quest to confirm her origins but ends up confronting a group of people who want to kill her father.). First, it seems rather long and contains a lot of information/content. I would cut it into two sentences to make it more digestable for a reader who is trying to learn more about this manga. And for my second comment, I am not certain about the phrase “ends up”. It is rather informal and is often an empy phrase. I would just remove it and say “confronts”.
I would revise this part (The manga was conceived by Kishimoto to further develop Sasuke and Sakura's bond in the form of Sarada) to avoid the passive tense in the beginning.
When I first read this part ( to further develop Sasuke and Sakura's bond in the form of Sarada), I was not immediately clear about its intended meaning. Also, the language and sentence construction is rather awkward. I think there is a more concise and clearer way of presenting this information to the reader. As a whole, it is vague. What bond are you talking? What do you mean by “in the from of Sarada”?
I would revise this part (and how she connected with Sasuke.) to this suggestion (and her connection with Sasuke.) for more concise language.
You use the transition “However” twice in the lead’s second paragraph. I have no issue with the transition itself, but using it twice in such close proximity is rather repetitive. I would either remove one of the instance or use a different transitional word.
Could you clarify this part (regarding the way fights were shown) as I find it somewhat ambigious? Do you mean that the artwork for the fights was criticized or the way that the fights were written and paced as critcized? These are two completely different things.
For this sentence (However, other writers had mixed opinions regarding the way fights were shown, and most of them criticized the forgettable villains.), I am not certain about the second half. It seems rather tagged on and certain parts, particularly “most of them” seems rather information. I would try to revise this sentence to read a little better.
Is the reference for the genre paramter of the infobox necessary? I would imagine that this information should be present and cited in the body of the article.

@Aoba47: At the moment, this information appears only in the infobox, and I am not sure where I should add this part in the article. Maybe to the beginning of the "Creation and release" section? Flowerpiep (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

I would add it to the beginning of the "Creation and reception" section. Also, please address the sentence that I have tagged with a clarification needed tag. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Done. Also, Tintor2 seems to have addressed that sentence. Flowerpiep (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I am not certain about the construction of this sentence (After seeing a picture with Sasuke's former allies, including Karin whose glasses look similar to hers, Sarada starts questioning if Sakura is her real mother and goes on a journey to find the answer from her father.). It is rather long and the content is rather awkwardly presented. I would either cut the sentence into two or revise it to have the information read better.
This may be a silly question, but I am slightly confused by the jump of logic in the sentence about Sarada looking at the image of Karin. How does Karin’s glasses lead to Sarada questioning her parentage? Glasses are certainly not a genetic trait lol.

@Aoba47: Indeed, this plot was definitely bizarre and not very plausible from a realistic point of view, but this is what happened in the story. Sarada's doubts regarding Karin started specifically because both of them wore glasses, and this was highlighted in many parts of the spin-off. Flowerpiep (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Makes sense. It is not necessarily the best plot. I would add the part about the glasses into the section again for clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I added it to the beginning of the "Plot" section. Flowerpiep (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

For this part (Chocho Akimichi joins Sarada, and they start following), I would introduce Chocho Akimichi to an unfamiliar reader and his role at this stage of the story. The same comment applies for Orochimaru. Do not rely on the link to introduce these characters to the reader.
This sentence (Shortly after their departure, the two girls are confronted by Sasuke's enemy.) is somewhat unclear as I was initially uncertain about who you meant by the phrase “the two girls” and I had to read it a few times to understand it.
For these sentence (Naruto saves the girls, forcing the boy to retreat. Naruto then takes Sarada and Chocho with him to Sasuke's location, and Sarada awakens her Sharingan.), I would avoid starting with the same word for two sentences.
This sentence (In the meantime, the father of the boy from before, who introduces himself as Shin Uchiha, appears) is very awkward and needs revision. The part “the father of the boy from before” is an example of some of the awkward prose in the article that should be addressed.
Is the transition “In the meantime” really necessary? It is rather vague and does not add much information.
I have two questions about this part (She is then teleported along with Shin to his hideout.). First, who is the she? My second question is who teleported both characters to the hideout?
This sentence (Recognizing him from the picture, Sarada convinces Sasuke's former ally Suigetsu Hozuki to perform a DNA test, for which he believes he uses Karin's umbilical cord and compares it with Sarada's DNA, obtaining a perfect match.) is constructed very awkwardly and needs revision.
I am not sure what you mean by “for which he believes he uses Karin's umbilical cord”. I am assuming that it is not really Karin’s umbilical cord. Also, why and how does he have this to begin with? It is very confusing.
The phrase “crying angrily” sounds strange to me. I would revise this.
For this part (but Naruto manages to calm her down by making her understand that only love truly matters, not blood relations.), I would replace “making her understand that” with “reminding her” for more concise language.
Is this part (Sarada and Naruto return to the group,) necessary? It was not made clear in the summary that the two characters were separated from the group to begin with.
I am not certain that I understand this sentence (After this, Sasuke says that Sarada's existence shows the connection between him and Sakura.). First, the “after this” is not a great transition so I would either replace it or remove it altogether, but what do you mean by “the connection between him and Sakura”. Do you mean that Sarada proves that couple was in love, that they were married, or something else?
For this part (Before leaving Konoha,), specify what “Konoha” is.
I do not believe that this sentence (In Orochimaru's hideout, Karin reveals that the umbilical cord which was used for the DNA test was Sakura and Sarada’s.) is correct. How can one umbilical cord belong to two people?
With all of this talk on the umbilical cord, it may be helpful to link it on its first use.

I do not fully understand the umbilical cord parts of the plot. To the best of my knowledge, the umbilical cord is associated with the fetus/baby. When you say "Karin's umbilical cord", I picture the umbilical cord from Karin's birth. This idea is further confused by "Karin reveals that the umbilical cord which was used for the DNA test was Sakura and Sarada’s." as how can a cord belong to two different people? I have heard that umbilical cord blood can be compared to the blood of the mother as part of paternity testing. Is that what you mean? I am lost during these parts. Aoba47 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Yes, "Karin's umbilical cord" refers to the umbilical cord from when Karin was born. I changed this sentence "Karin reveals that the umbilical cord which was used for the DNA test was Sakura and Sarada’s." to "Karin reveals that the umbilical cord which was used for the DNA test was the one between Sakura and Sarada.". Technically, the umbilical cord is Sarada's (from Sarada's birth), but the fact that it connected Sarada to Sakura during the pregnancy had to somehow be highlighted, since this represents the confirmation that Sakura is Sarada's biological parent (which was a major plot point in the spin-off). Also, the umbilical cord actually has only the DNA of the fetus, not the DNA of the mother. I do not know about the umbilical cord blood, but if you compare the DNA from the umbilical cord itself to the DNA of the child whose birth it originated from, a perfect match will be obtained. This is what happened in Sarada's case. Flowerpiep (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Before I progress further in the article, I would highly encourage you to request a copy-edit for this page. I can see that a lot of great work has been put into this and the prose is servicable, but it needs further work as a whole before it can really pass the requirements for a GA.

I will wait until the article is copy-edited by the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and look through the article one more time and most likely pass it at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and release.

For this part of the caption (It has attracted multiple positive responses.), I would remove “multiple” as it is not really needed.
Instead of “this manga”, I would use “the manga”.
I am confused by the quote in this part (he decided he had "to make it interesting at any cost" as he felt he needed to please previous Naruto manga readers with this single story.). I think that it goes without saying that every writer wants their material to be interesting for their readers. I would revise the sentence (Masashi Kishimoto said that while creating this manga, he decided he had "to make it interesting at any cost" as he felt he needed to please previous Naruto manga readers with this single story.) to (Masashi Kishimoto said that he felt pressure while creating the manga to live up to the expectations established by the previous Naruto releases). Keep the links of course.
I am confused by this sentence (Kishimoto read several unspecified books about women's traits to select the right characteristics for Sarada's personality.). What “women’s traits” is he talking about? This is important to specify as the following sentence (In the end, he gave these characteristics instead to another character appearing in the spin-off – Chocho Akimichi.) brings up these “characteristics yet again. If you do not specify what these “characteristics” are, then these sentences do not convey a lot of meaning to the reader.

@Aoba47: The problem is that, to my knowledge, Kishimoto did not specify exactly what characteristics he was referring to. I believe he was talking about characteristics associated with women in general, not about some specific characteristics. Still, I tried to word this part a little better. Flowerpiep (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

I looked through the English translation of the source cited for this information (my Japanese abilities are nowhere near the level to read this in the original). He mentions something about psychology in this line: (There was a freshness there unlike "Naruto". Salad is not a "girl" much an atmosphere character, but I bought some books of HOW TO books like "Girl Power UP" thinking that I would not study girls' psychology or something, so I studied it It is.) and talks about it more in this line: (I intended to make a character based on what I studied in books ... why the results were reflected in butterflies (daughters of cloves) rather than salads.). Again, these are the automated English translations of the lines so you should look back at the original Japanese versions. I also could not find the information about Chocho Akimichi in the interview so could you point out where that is? Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the information. Still, I have also just looked at the English translation, and I cannot understand much from these lines. I cannot quite notice specific characteristics, and this part "thinking that I would not study girls' psychology or something" is especially confusing. The information about Chocho is in one of the sentences from above: "reflected in butterflies (daughters of cloves)" ("butterflies" was translated instead of Chocho, while "cloves" was translated instead of Choji, who is Chocho's father). The information can also be found in this sentence: "Masashi: The secret of the birth of a character, I feel a bit stiff. I was able to balance the work with a bright side character, so it was good as a result. The butterfly popularity around me was also high.", in which Kishimoto confirmed Chocho's popularity and the fact that she was a bright character. Flowerpiep (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I think that you have done the best you could with the material given, and I have a lot of respect for the work and research you have done with this. I think that I have more of an issue with the actual manga and I find the idea of studying "female characteristics" to be rather silly. That being said, I think that this section is fine in its current state. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you can revise this sentence (He did this because Sarada's story was dark, and he aimed to balance it with Chocho, who would help keep the story comical and entertaining for readers due to the contrast to Sarada's arc.) with more concise language to make it read better.
I am confused by this sentence (Another aspect Kishimoto wanted to develop in the series was the bond between Sarada and her mother, Sakura Uchiha, when the latter believes Sarada is in danger.). So, according to this sentence, Kishimoto only wanted to focus on their bond when Sakura believes that Sarada is in danger? That does not seem right to me.
For this part (For the finale of the Naruto spin-off, Kishimoto wanted it to end with the focus on Sarada's family), I would revise it to (Kishimoto wanted to end the spin-off with a focus on Sarada’s family).
I am not sure what is meant by this phrase (during his new departure).

Reception

For the first sentence, I would use the manga’s full title again instead of “the manga”.
I am confused by the structure of the last two paragraphs. I would try to add more structure here and possibly topic sentences. I will return to this section again once it is re-structured for more in-depth commentary and suggestions.

Adaptation

For this part (The manga was adapted into an animated story arc from the television series), I would say “for” instead of “from”.
This sentence (It was adapted from August 9, 2017 to September 6, 2017 (episodes 19–23).) does not necessarily make sense. It reads like the adaptation process occurred between these two dates. I would just say “The episodes aired between August 9, 2017 to September 6, 2017).
For this part (expressed happiness at the development of the characters since they formed a family bond during this arc.), the phrase “expressed happiness” is somewhat stilted and I would avoid it.
For this part (The arc was highly acclaimed by multiple anime and manga reviewers for the development of the Uchiha family,), I would remove “multiple” as it is not needed.
I would revise this part (for the development of the Uchiha family, which they believed came across as an enjoyable yet flawed family.) to (the portrayal of the Uchihas as an enjoyable yet flawed family) for more concise language.
Could you expand on this sentence (Sarada and Sasuke's relationship was appreciated the most due to the way they interacted.)? Also, I am not sure that a singular source support that it was the most appreciated part.

The above sentence has been edited to this (Sarada and Sasuke's relationship was also appreciated due to the way they managed to form a bond). It is unclear who is appreciating the relationship. Please make this clear in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I think Flowerpiep already dealt with that. BTW, nice work Flowerpiep.Tintor2 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Great work with this article. I admire your work on manga and anime articles, and it really inspires me to do more work on those subjects for Wikipedia. I am currently trying to learn Japanese again (after several false starts and a rather poor attempt in university) so it could be a fun way to help with my studies. Anyway, there is a lot of work that needs to be done with this article. Once my comments are addrssed, I will look through it again and add a second wave of suggestions. I highly recommend that you get someone to copy-edit this during this time as the prose needs more work to be considered appropriate for a GA. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flowerpiep: I tried revising the lead and plot according to Aoba and left a note in the guild of copyedit. Maybe Flowerpiep might fix it better than me. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I will try to the best of my ability to help this article pass as a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: I tried to fix the issues pointed out in the comments except for the reorganisation of the reception section. I will do that later today. Flowerpiep (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I reorganised the structure of the "Reception" section and added two topic sentences to the last two paragraphs. Flowerpiep (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Thank you for addressing this. It looks much better now. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: The copy editing has been completed. Flowerpiep (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Verdict

Thank you for addressing everything. I apologize for how long the review process has taken. The article look really good; I will ✓ Pass this as a good article. Great work with this! Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.