Wikipedia:Peer review/List of New Cutie Honey episodes/archive1

List of New Cutie Honey episodes

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm pretty much done with this anime episode list. I took months off from the article, then came back yesterday and today to finish its summaries. It is now B-class.

Is this list a potential featured list? If not, what can I add or fix? I don't see many (if any) issues that would keep it out, except maybe copyediting.
Any other suggestions?

(If this looks familiar, I requested peer review of New Cutie Honey a while back, but not for this list of its episodes.)

Thanks, an odd name 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

In general

The only thing that (once other issues are resolved) might speak against promotion of this list to FL-status is the recent development at WP:FL?, which led to the addition of criterion 3.b. Though personally I think this is an acceptable stand alone list, some may argue that it "could ... reasonably be included" in List of Cutie Honey episodes. Now, don't get me wrong and run off to merge the two. I'm merely pointing out that this is likely to come up at a possible FLC. (Note that even prior to the addition of 3.b there was an unwritten rule that a list should have at least 10 items to be elegible for FL-status.)
The list as it is now is pretty good already. What still needs to be done are a lot of small things. The list lacks the distinct look and feel of a featured episode list. That is because it does not follow the Manual of Style to the letter and because it appears to be done mainly with common sense rather than by imitating other featured episode lists. You can refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/News to find the most recently promoted episode lists.

Some things I noticed by skimming over the list

Pick either the Day Month Year or the Month Day, Year format and use it everywhere. Do not use Year-Month-Day.
Where titles are romanized, the romaji should be title-cased as well.
Abbreviations should be written out on the first occurence: "Original video animation (OVA)" instead of "OVA".
There is three bulleted references at the end of the references list. I can't tell what they are used to cite.

I'm currently not at full editing strength. If this peer review stays open long enough, there's a good chance I'll be doing a more in-depth review. This was really only very superficial. I hope it helped anyways. Regards, Goodraise 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Superficial", perhaps, but quite helpful; thank you.

Though personally I think this is an acceptable stand alone list, some may argue that it "could ... reasonably be included" in List of Cutie Honey episodes. Now, don't get me wrong and run off to merge the two.

On the contrary: after that NCH review, I'm not running off to merge any articles about different Cutie Honey series. I also thought you'd have said "it 'could ... reasonably be included' in New Cutie Honey [the main article]", but after seeing List of Oh My Goddess! episodes the idea is less surprising; the series are probably a little more different from each other than each season of OMG, though.

I certainly won't merge the anime and live-action episodes, but a List of Cutie Honey anime episodes might work if there's enough verifiable info on the other three series (CH, Flash, and Re). I'm slightly scared even of that, but hey whatever works.

Whether or not this "could ... reasonably be included" in some other place is a complex question. If only looking at the list itself, it's reasonable to say that it's too short. That leaves the question where to put it. New Cutie Honey is a well balanced, fleshed out article, well on its way to FA-status. I'd hate to see it messed up by a forced merge like that. Creating a combined episode list in one way or the other, seems like a viable option, yet I can't be sure of that because the subject matter is too alien to me. What you need to do is look into it (possibly propose a merge and discuss it with other editors of the series' articles) merge the articles or (if you conclude that it is not a "reasonable" option) explain in the FLC nomination why the list "could [not]... reasonably be included" in any other article, because reviewers there will find themselves in the same position as I am in right now. Goodraise 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is three bulleted references at the end of the references list. I can't tell what they are used to cite.

Nagaoka is the "Essential Anime" release, which is the one I have; any automatic ref that cites "Essential Anime Collection", or any plot summary in general, refers to that. The two "Sakai" ones (I strongly doubt that's even the right romanization of the editor's name, but none is given so that's another issue) are the Perfect Guides; any auto ref that cites "Perfect Guide" or "Perfect Guide vol. 2" refers to that.. I'll probably change the refs to use the editor surnames (e.g. Sakai vol. 2), and maybe use {{Harvnb}} or something similar, but that way seems even less recognizable to me. You won't catch me referring to New Cutie Honey as "Nagaoka" in real life, or e.g. Bride of Frankenstein as "Whale". :)

Okay, I'll say more about this once I do a more detailed review. Goodraise 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list lacks the distinct look and feel of a featured episode list. That is because it does not follow the Manual of Style to the letter and because it appears to be done mainly with common sense rather than by imitating other featured episode lists.

I thought I had been imitating other lists; when I was creating it, I mainly read List of Bleach episodes (season 1) and List of FLCL episodes to get an idea of the right table style and summary length. Oh well, I learn something new every day. :P

You picked two of the older lists. Over time, featured content tends to deteriorate, the MoS changes/expands, and the featured content candidate processes grow more scrutinous. Therefore one should look at the more recent ones to imitate. Still, both these lists have that "look" I was talking about. (This doesn't mean that there is a lot to do, just that I expect to find a lot once I do that "more detailed review".) Goodraise 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the types of table columns are the problem, I could only add what I had info for; I can't even add laserdisc release dates because only two fan sites seem to have the whole list. (The perfect guides have only a few dates; I saw pictures of magazine pages that may have the others, but I've forgotten even where they are located, let alone what they have and what magazines they showed).

This could be a problem. Re-releases are a whole order of magnitude less important than the first of a language. If the episodes were first made available to the public on laser discs, the release dates of those are needed for WP:FL? criterion 3.a. Goodraise 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the red/pink table color is the problem, it was inspired both by the Bleach list and Ryulong's Cutie Honey template color change. If it's punctuation or quotation or something else not readily visible, I'll need to check the MOS again. If it's something else, please specify.

The color is fine. That's not it. Goodraise 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed the smaller things; if not, clue me in. --an odd name 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'm a little low on edits per day at the moment, so I'll do the review piece by piece.

In depth review (incomplete)

You mention that there is an English version, but the table gives no English release dates.
The third paragraph of the lead overuses parentheses. Try using commas or dashes, it looks more professional.
As mentioned above, the original release (and its dates) is of paramount importance. The lead starts by calling the series an OVA, then says where it first aired. You see the problem?
"Kurisumasu ni noroi no yuki ga furu" needs to be title-cased.

~~(more to come)~~ Goodraise 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cursed Snow Falls in Christmas" - Mind WP:OVERLINK. Don't link words everyone will understand.
The table is separated into "Original four episodes" and "Dark Army Story". Where does that information come from? A sentence in the lead might be nice. (Personally, I think these rows decrease the visual appeal of the list. Maybe splitting the list using Level-3 section headers would look better.)
"Dark Army Story" is used in the opening sequences. Those four episodes are all marked with that "subtitle" in the title cards. Each episode starts with the opening sequence, followed by a small scene, a title card, and the rest of the episode. I could start them all with "Dark Army Story" like Toei Channel does in Japanese with e.g. "闇の軍団編 挑戦！邪空獣の牙", but it then looks a bit redundant and ADV doesn't use it outside of the cards anyway. I'll probably use the Level-3 header; sorting would become harder, but it's just eight episodes so whatever. --an odd name 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources: [22](Episode titles), [3](release dates)[note 3]" - Why go around an additional corner if you don't have to? Place [3] behind "Title" and [note 3] behind "VHS release date" in the list header. Skip [22] altogether. Instead place the general references in a sub-section header (see List of Bleach episodes (season 8)).
[22] is for the titles, [3] is for the dates, and [note 3] is a general reminder to find those damn Laserdisc dates to replace the VHS columns with the first releases. --an odd name 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~(more to come)~~ Goodraise 18:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Its eight 25-minute episodes ... are known in Japan as 'Stages'" - Aren't they known under their titles?
In Japan, the episodes are known by the titles, but also use a numbering scheme "Stage.n" where n is the ep#. It seems like how other series would use "Episode IV" or even "Movement 13". "Stage.n" is used before the titles sometimes (e.g. the first episode laserdisc cover from this store page, and the Toei Channel listings, as in "新・キューティーハニー Stage.1 天使は舞い降りた") but not in the title cards during the episodes themselves. Not sure how else to explain it. --an odd name 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"ADV Films released the series in four subtitled two-episode VHS tapes;" - subtitled in what language?
"the company marketed the fourth and final volume as 'a double dose of dynamic damsels deliberately demolishing diabolical demagogues'." - I don't understand the purpose of this sentence, nice aliteration though.
Removed. --an odd name 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Toei re-released the entire series on DVD on May 21" - Overlink.
"as the New Cutie Honey Complete Pack; the release included" - You seem to love the ';'. This one I'd replace with a period.

(more to come) Goodraise 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I haven't forgotten about this peer review. I'll finish it eventually, unless it's closed before then of course, I just don't know when I'll get around to it. Regards, Goodraise 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a step back

Reading into the plot summaries has made me rethink my opinion. The summaries are written to be read as part of the main article. Being unfamiliar with the series/franchise myself, I can hardly make heads or tails of them (without consulting the plot and characters sections in the main article). This is a problem all episode lists have to overcome on their way to FL-status. The difference here is that the list contains only 8 items. Introducing the characters and placing the plot into context would create a lot of redundancy to the main article, further pushing the list in the direction of a content fork. It's unfortunate that the various Cutie Honey series are so different from each other. That leaves, IMHO, a merge back into the main article as the best option. - How to structure the resulting merged article is another question. Maybe you could somehow merge the plot summaries from this list with the plot and characters sections. At least that's what I would try to do. - Most of the concerns I have left with this list are related to it being separate from the main article, so if you decide to merge them, I'd consider my review as complete. Goodraise 20:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge seems reasonable to me, especially with 3 (b) hanging over us. One big roadblock at the New Cutie Honey GAN, though, was the length of the plot and characters sections: I had to shorten them further post-peer review. The release information that's still only in the List article might be enough to offset the added plot info—if I add only part of the summaries—but I'm not sure if it would survive a GAR. (To that end, I hope I can grab some more real-world info from the Encyclopedia Cutie Honey cited in the main article, when the copy I finally found arrives in my hands.) --an odd name 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll work out somehow... Right now the plot/real-world ratio of New Cutie Honey is 3/10, which is good. Also, stuffing everything related to this series into a single article should give you a certain amount of leeway. If you stay below 4/10, it should be fine. - It's an unfortunate size, not really enough for a list, yet a bit too much for a section. Can't be helped, unless you can get Mr. Nagai to make another eight episodes of course. ;) Goodraise 00:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. If I'm lucky I'll get that sacred tome of Honey in a few weeks; I'll start merging (if at all) after that. Remind me to save up to bribe Nagai to finish the series... :P --an odd name 01:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]