From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Gaara 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 8, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
August 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan good article.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been featured on the Anime and Manga portal.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.

GA run[edit]

I've rewritten several sections of the article (I'll get to the lead later). The character outline section needs to be heavily condensed and sourced, and the plot overview section could use some touching up too. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Finished the lead. The character outline and plot overview sections are all that's left. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide[edit] Kid becomes sand hero imitating Gaara. Worthy of inclusion? Kakama (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors on the main article think not. --Farix (Talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You all might want to participate in this discussion if haven't already done so. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's kind of appropriate. I actually came to this article hoping to find the story in like a "Gaara in Popular Culture" section. Totally worthy. There's no reason NOT to include it.(Myscrnnm (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
Actually, popular culture sections tend to be discouraged. If they're relevant or significant, they'll go into the "other media" section. As for this incident, it's not notable. Per the linked discussion, unless this results in a lawsuit, mass media attention, or similar, then it shouldn't be included. Refer to WP:NOT#NEWS. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd put this under reception. Sand hero obviously thought Gaara was cool enough to warrant burying himself in sand in Gaara's likeness. StardustDragon 05:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The prose style here is too often clumsy. There's too much passive voice: the third paragraph in the lead, for example, is almost entirely in the passive. Or take this sentence, which is both awkward and difficult to understand: "Wishing for Gaara to be able to singlehandedly fill this gap, Gaara's father, the leader of Sunagakure at the time, had the One-Tailed Shukaku sealed within Gaara during his birth." The article could do with a thorough copy-edit. But the biggest problem for me here is that the article remains too "in-universe." I think that there should be less "character outline" and more along the lines of what's detailed under "creation and conception." A comparison with similar figures in other series, for instance, might be in order. More generally, and more seriously, the article is hard to comprehend for someone who is not already familiar with the topic.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The references seem reasonable, though I should admit that this is not a topic with which I'm very familiar. I could therefore be wrong on this point.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    As above, I'd like a broader point of view, that would place this character more in context.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    I'm putting this on hold, mainly so that the writing can be improved. Above all, the article needs to be comprehensible to someone who is not already familiar with its topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmurray (talkcontribs) 19:07, 31 March 2008
Although I don't have a problem working on the prose or making it less in-universe (different editors took different parts of the article, which would explain a lack of consistency in tone), I disagree with the notion that less of the "character outline" is necessary or that more of the out-of-universe material is needed. The character outline section compresses practically eight years of material released on a weekly basis, and after the last rewrite of the material (in which this article when from completely in-universe with extremely detailed in-universe details to the present state), I fear any further reduction will verge on making the article not comprehensive. As for the conception section, it represents as much as is available (in other words, as much as the author has revealed about the conception), and a section detailing comparisons to other characters appears to hinge on being WP:OR. Despite this, I am open to discussion about the previous points. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, again for the sake of comprehensibility... If I were to want to know when and how the character was introduced, the closest I'd get to an answer to that question would be the following: "He debuts when he is entered in the Chunin Exams taking place in Konohagakure, meant to play a key role in Sunagakure's planned invasion of the village." This, frankly, hardly helps me at all. Following the footnote, I deduce that he's introduced in volume eleven of what is (perhaps? to date?) at least a 32-volume serial. But the article is so invested in the character's own narrative logic that such basic facts are obscured. Presumably, then, everything that is described under "Background" is in fact better named "Backstory." Are these episodes provided in something like flashback? What devices are used to explain the appearance of this character a third of the way in to the overall narrative? An awareness that this is indeed a narrative could greatly improve the article. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done what I can to try and address the issues brought up here. Since I have a tendency to needlessly complicate things, I recommend someone (Sephiroth?) take a crack at simplificating my verbosifidness. ~SnapperTo 04:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still finding this rather difficult to understand. Some further examples:

  • Gaara is a fictional character from the Naruto universe created by Masashi Kishimoto and developed into a media franchise, which consists of a series of manga, anime, soundtracks, OVAs, movies, video games, and other collectibles.
Presumably the point here is that the "universe" (rather than Gaara) was developed into a media franchise etc.? The grammar does not make it clear. It might be better in any case to say "anime and manga series."
I think I'd already fixed this, in fact. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's in the lead should ideally be dispensible. Yet the moniker "Gaara of the Sand Waterfall" is never mentioned in the article body.
This has not been fixed. Meanwhile, overall the lead has become more "in-universe," not less. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • He and Naruto have a similar background: he was rejected by his peers and fellow villagers for being the host of a tailed beast, a situation that Kishimoto describes as "very much like Naruto's. He was universally rejected and ignored, living a superfluous existence."
I'm not sure of the similarity here. As I was trying to edit, at first I thought the point was that both Gaara and Naruto were "rejected by his peers and fellow villagers for being the host of a tailed beast" (whatever indeed that means; could do with clarification). On second reading, however, I don't think that's what's meant, in which case the connection between the two seems rather more tenuous, and should be clarified.
This has become more opaque (as well as more in-universe) with the change to "the two were born through similar circumstances"... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This backstory, told via flashbacks at the start of Gaara's fight with Naruto Uzumaki, serves as a way to contrast the two character's diverse upbringings. While both characters face similar hardships of hate and neglect in their youth, they each develop radically different personalities.
This seems to offer a rather different take: that the two characters' upbringings were in fact diverse (rather than similar). Again, it's rather unclear.
...and yet, to add to the confusion, later on we learn about "differences in the circumstances of their births." Again, this is if anything muddier rather than clearer. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And the "fight with Naruto" is never introduced and explained, despite the fact that (judging from the reviews below) it is apparently key to Gaara's role in the series.
Still not explained. Why do the two fight?
  • To keep the village's military forces from becoming too weak, his father had the One-Tailed Shukaku sealed within Gaara during his birth.
I know there's a link to "One-Tailed Shukaku" here, but a) I think the articles should be coherent and intelligible on their own account and in any case b) the linked page hardly helps much, let alone to explain what it means for a One-Tailed Shukaku to be sealed within a character "during [their] birth."
And so I guess that the One-Tailed Shukaku is the "tailed beast" referred to earlier? There seems to be some repetition here, all the more confusing as it's not exact repetition so at first sight it's not obvious that the same incident or characteristics are being discussed in two different places.
Still unclear. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Gaara's most fundamental characteristic at the start of the series is a direct result of his background; as he is the only person he can count on, he comes to believe that the only way he can feel alive is by killing others. The second part of this sentence doesn't obviously follow on from the first.
The non sequitur is not fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Gaara has ranked highly in the Shonen Jump popularity polls for the series, continuously placing in the top ten and reaching seventh place once.[8]
This citation is confusing, as it is not to Shonen Jump; it seems misplaced.
Still confusing. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall, though with careful and patient re-reading I can indeed piece together what's meant in this article, it's pretty tough going for someone who's not already familiar with the topic. And surely an encyclopedia should be directed precisely at such people?

I'm going to do a little more editing myself to try to help matters out. But I fear that my edits will reveal only how unclear the prose is at present. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a little while to rewrite some of the stuff based on your concerns. I hope that it will now be more linear and hopefully more understandable on first read. I also added a couple more important plot points, and clarified his parallels with Naruto somewhat. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that part of Yashamaru. As pointed before, the in-universe info is very big compared to the out-of. Increasing the in-universe will make it worse. That part of Yashamaru is not really necessary.Tintor2 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, while there has been movement on this article, it hasn't really addressed the issues I raised in the review, and in some ways it has been a case of two steps forward but another one back again. I feel I have to fail the review for now at least. Good luck as the article continues to develop and improve! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Part I, Part II ???[edit]

I noticed that the article says that Gaara's age is 12-13 in Part 1, but it doesn't have his age in Part II. Also, it says that his ninja rank is the 5th Kazekage, but he doesn't become that until Part 2. What's up with that? I'm kinda confused. A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We dont have a source for his age in Part II. That's why it isnt there. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 05:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes we do. The Hiden: Shō no Sho Official Character Databook Mini that was part of the Weekly Shōnen Jump Hero Book. It gives us the ages of Naruto, Gaara, Kankurō, Shikamaru, Kakashi, and Sakura. --JadziaLover (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh, I wasnt aware that a new databook came out already... Maybe you could bring that to the attention of people on Naruto's talk page, and provide a link or something, so that we can finally put Part II ages up... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't an actual databook. It came as an extra with chapter 254 (I think it was 254... at any rate, it was more then 3 years ago). It has information about a handful of characters and jutsu, some information about Akatsuki and the history of Konoha, but nothing much. You could see it as a teaser for the next databook. However, as I said, it does have the part 2 ages of a couple of characters --JadziaLover (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Does it have an ISBN or something of the like that could be put into a {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} template? That would allow us to add it to the article. ~SnapperTo 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it came as an extra with chapter 254, so I guess it would be considered part of that week's Weekly Shounen Jump issue. --JadziaLover (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Here I found some news about that book, maybe it helps to know the date of that shonen jump.Tintor2 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So I guess the ref would be {{cite journal|title=Hiden: Shō no Sho Official Character Databook Mini|journal=Weekly Shōnen Jump|issue=18|page=?|year=2004|publisher=Shueisha}}. Since that seems to be in order, what are the ages that are given? ~SnapperTo 03:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The year should be 2005, I believe.
The ages given are: Naruto, Gaara, Shikamaru, Sakura 15; Kankurou 17; and Kakashi 29. --JadziaLover (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Added.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the cover of chapter 411 there is a date about a new book that will be released on September 4th. Is that a new databook?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is. 『NARUTO-ナルト-キャラクターオフィシャルデータBOOK〔秘伝・者の書〕』, or more understandably, The "Naruto Character Official Databook [Hiden: Sha no Sho] ". --JadziaLover (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds cool. Also, I added the page number to the references of the herobook but they do not appear in the ref.Tintor2 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of gaaras eyes rings/weariness in part II. originally gaara didnt sleep much because the shukaku would take control of him when he slept, hence his noticeable black rings around his eyes. now that he is no longer host, youd figure that his rings would dissappate but they are firmly in place. i think its atleast worth a mentioning.Diablo11d (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol on forehead[edit]

I've noticed that quite a few times the focus shifts to the mark on Gaara's forehead, but I can't find anything on this page. Can we get anything on the significance of that? ~Deadly-Bagel (talk)

  • It's the kanji 愛 which reads "ai" and means "affection" or "love". I'm pretty sure it was removed as part of the pruning of overinformation on Naruto, but I think it probably should at least be mentioned as it's a prominent part of his character design. JuJube (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Bit more info on that kanji here: (quote: he carved the kanji for "love" in his forehead, the only time his sandshaping powers had allowed him to be injured.).. no idea how accurate this is, but it's nonetheless interesting. -- (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It is Kanji for 'love' (in Chinese atleast, verified by my Chinese friend, and it is also 'love' in Japanese [according to the internet]) and it is used to symbolise that he loves only himself, and nothing else. Benfen (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Subjective Content[edit]

Gaara "is THE MOST AMAZING NINJA IN THE WORLD" is highly subjective and needs to be removed immediately. L.J. Tibbs (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a vandalism (see). Thank you, L.J. Tibbs. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you be okay if I removed it? L.J. Tibbs (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. L.J. Tibbs (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)