Wikipedia:Peer review/Excel Saga/archive1

Excel Saga

I've really whipped this article into shape over the past few days, and especially the past twenty-four hours. Nevertheless, I'm concerned that I might have too many images, and that either the quantity or quality of my secondary sources are lacking. What I know is a problem, however, is the lack of explicit and substantial information on production and Rikudou's and Nabeshin's sources of inspiration--I'm working on these. If you can come up with any other suggestions, I would be much obliged.--Monocrat 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added production notes.--Monocrat 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand on the comment "The twenty-sixth, "Going Too Far," was intentionally made to be too controversial for public broadcast." - It seems interesting, and since your source isn't a website cannot be immediately researched further. Perhaps add a Controversy section for that.
• Expand on the comment "Both versions recount, but in different ways" - I would like to see a specific section dealing with the main differences between the anime and the manga. Perhaps keep the basic plot that both follow in the "Plot" section, while having two additional subsections to show how the mediums differ in the story telling. "Anime to Manga comparisions" are something that the vast majority of our articles are lacking, and it would be nice for you to be one of the few to remedy that.
• Needs some pictures from the manga. - The manga came first, and yet the entire article only shows pictures for the anime.
• Get rid of superficial references. - Don't add more references that you actually need. For example, "...published in the United States by VIZ Media.[5]" does not need to be referenced as it is common obtainable knowledge. Go through and ask yourself if people are really going to doubt some of your referenced comments. Don't need to clutter it with numbers any more than you have to.
• Add a picture of the logo for the infobox - This is just personal preference really, but I like for the infoboxes to contain a logo or a manga/anime cover instead of a screenshot.
• Make sure all Japanese words are in italics - It's just a standard rule for foreign words. I noticed hanami wasn't and I fixed that but there may be others.
• while Aliens, Gundam, Rose of Versailles, Dragon Ball, and Sailor Moon all are notable references - That list of references is mentioned twice. Fix that.
• Avoid such terms such as "one reviewer" - Just say who the reviewer is. People don't want to have to dig through the references to see who it is you're quoting.

---

Side notes for related articles

• I believe you should remove the quotation marks「」around the kanji for List of Excel Saga episodes. I realize that you copied the style from the OMG list, but in OMG the quotation marks are actually part of the title. If you notice on List of Planetes episodes, the quotation marks are not used. However, I've never actually seen the series, so maybe the quotation marks are offical after all.
• Please try to add pictures for everyone at Characters of Excel Saga. One thing I use Wikipedia as a resource for is to figure out characters' names when I forget them, and without pictures that's really tough.
• Hope all this helps. :) --SeizureDog 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take care of the superficial reference, the Japanese quotation marks, and trim the first list of anime references (I think it's important to leave some in the lead). Regarding pictures: I have no scanner to capture the manga, so I'm stuck with the covers, I'll put in anyway--that's a really good point you raise. I previously had a screenshot (essentially the logo) from the Japanese opening of the show, but I took it down because I thought the Japanese would be user-unfriendly, and because I didn't think it (or the English equivalent) captured the essence of the show or its star as well does the current infobox photo. Plus I wanted one with more of Hyatt in it. It's a problem, though, I admit. RE "Going Too Far," I have thought of making a section or paragraph about it; I'll think on that. Anyway, I've long been concerned about putting into relief the differences between the media, but I'm just not sure how to do it without gutting other sections or being irredeemably redundant, and finding sources is another issue: the manga simply hasn't attracted the critical attention of the anime. Perhaps changing the phrasing you cite might be acceptable? :) I think I'm on the opposite end of the question of reviewer's names: unless the name (say, ANN) lends extra weight to the statement, or the statement is really sweeping, it seems to me that names just clutter the prose. Of course, my method my cause a different frustration. I'll see what I can do.--Monocrat 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of most of your suggestions, I think. I've expanded the discussion of "Going Too Far" and included a photo under "Anime development." I've replace the pictures in "Characters" with manga covers, in addition to your smaller concerns. Let me know what you think.

• I was more interested in the logic of the creation of "Going Too Far". Was it just for the hell of it? Did he suffer any consequences for its creation? Wasting an entire episode's budget on something he knew wouldn't be aired seems like it might have brought him some flak.

File:ExcelSagaLogo.gif

• What about using the logo in the infobox?
• "I think I'm on the opposite end of the question of reviewer's names: unless the name (say, ANN) lends extra weight to the statement, or the statement is really sweeping, it seems to me that names just clutter the prose." I completely agree with you, but that's exactly the problem. If the review's source can't lend support to the statement then it probably shouldn't be cited at all.--SeizureDog 05:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't speak definitively to that: there's nothing to suggest that motivation or the motivation for the whole "experiments" idea in the English secondary sources, online or official, and I can't read Japanese well enough to bother going that route. :) RE sources, note that I said "extra weight." While they're not in the same league as ANN, I think they're the best available, but I'll do some more digging. On the logo, I don't think it goes well with the infobox. I don't mind the suggestion, but is there a particular reason for the preference for logos?--Monocrat 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:LOGOS It's simple standardization. Currently, most anime pages use an image the includes the title in some fashion.

RE:BESTTHEREIS That link does not specifically apply to reviews though. It applies to using such sources for pop culture news, a major difference. Citing statistics (e.g. sales, score on ANN) is perfered to single unnoteworthy reviews. If you're going to quote someone who doesn't matter, make sure you're quoting a lot of people who don't matter. --SeizureDog 11:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points on both, though I think the cited policy is inclusive of reviews, with news being a prominent example--such are the perils of interpretation. I've changed the infobox photo and added the names of the websites/organizations the reviews came from. It seems to me that even in the case of ANN, who cares who wrote the thing? Fair compromise? Like I said, I'll see if I can find other well written reviews to cite.--Monocrat 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is impressive and has certainly come a long way. I'll just add a few notes before I go to bed:
  • First off, I only know the anime well, so disregard anything I say that makes no sense in regard to the manga.
  • The anime and manga are both treated quite well now, however, I find the parallel structure of the article sometimes confusing. Personally, I would have seperated the two a bit more.
  • The "plot" section and the "characters" section still overlap significantly - not surprising, since what little plot there is is mostly character-driven. I don't know what can be done about that, though.
  • I think the "anime adaption" section is a bit short - but most of the info of the anime is spread out over the rest of the article, especially the lead. Maybe air dates, DVD release dates, etc. should be recounted there in greater detail, since the lead should only summarise the article and not contain info not found elsewhere.
  • "Critical reception" is good, and I know you've had a hard time finding really notable reviews - but more notable reviews would be better. A bit of authorative analysis would be better still, but I don't think that even exists.
  • On a related note, some sales figures and/or tv ratings would be nice (I know that can be immensely difficult to locate, but keep it in mind).
  • You extensively cite the source material - I wouldn't go to such lengths citing each plot point from the anime directly with a footnote, which breaks up the reading flow somewhat. Maybe these can be used given as general references? The manga cites are worth it for the ISBN numbers alone, though. However, you might still leave these in since FAC reviewers seem to love inline cites.
• That's it. Good work otherwise, and most of these points are stylistic anyway, making them largely personal preferences. Maybe I'll add more tomorrow. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! These are good suggestions. I think I've found some overlap and anime references I can trim. I'll try to drive home in the rest of the anime and manga references that I'm citing the ADV notes or Oubliette, not the source work itself. I'll also add more information I found today on manga sales figures.--Monocrat 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, yesterday I looked at the general structure, today I'm going into a bit more detail (Note: This is a refactoring zone, in which I add notes as I think of them, at least until someone replies).
  • Lead
    • "Excel Saga is a manga series by Rikudou Koushi[1] and a comedy anime based on it which is directed by Shinichi Watanabe." — maybe you should drop the "which is", and also note that is is an anime TV series (not a movie or OAV) right from the start.
    • "Although the manga and anime differ in subplots, minor characters and other details, both versions recount the attempts of ACROSS, including the title character, Excel, to conquer the city of Fukuoka, Fukuoka, as a first step towards world domination." — very long and complicated sentence, should be broken up. Also assumes the reader knows what an ACROSS is. Maybe something like "...attempts of a nefarious secret society called ACROSS, ..."?
    • "frequently breaking the fourth wall" — "breaking the fourth wall" most often means directly adressing the audience. I don't think that happens in Excel Saga, at least not "frequently" (it's done in a roundabout way in the first episode, with Excel realizing that Rikdo is her original creator, but even then it's not really that explicit). It's about the presentation: For someone who doesn't know that Nabeshin is the avatar of the director, he's simply another enigmatic character (Note: Puni Puni Poemy does break the 4th wall frequently, with Poemi calling Nabeshin "director" and the like). Note that I don't say that the statement "Excel Saga breaks the forth wall" is wrong, I just don't think the matter is clear enough for a brief statement in the lead, and I'd say that Excel Saga is very self-referential instead, which is beyond doubt.
    • "especially Fist of the North Star, Space Battleship Yamato, and Super Sentai." — while I understand that the whole list of parodies formerly at that position was excessive, the three mentioned now are not really all that special - FotN in particular has only one episode, making it no more special than Gundam or Aliens. The "especially" makes the three seem more important than they really are. Suggestion: Change "especially" to "among them".
    • "ADV Films produced the English-language version of the anime,..." — I noticed a significant omission - the anime was shown on MTV in Italy, dubbed in Italian, no less (at least, it:Excel Saga says so, but I don't read Italian well). It also ran on Canal Plus in France (fr:Excel Saga), which, knowing the French, implies to me that there is a French dub as well. Ep. 26 wasn't shown in France - did it air in Italy? Please find out. Add information on any dubs, translations, releases and showings (an aside: I don't known if it was shown on US TV - if it wasn't, note it is only available on DVD, if it was, note where and when) worldwide, and do the same for the manga. A new section called "worldwide releases" may be appropriate. Also, the "English version" obviously can't have extras - the DVD on which said version is sold has.
    • The lead no longer mentions Puni Puni Poemy. Maybe that isn't really necessary, but neither does the rest of the article, it's only in the series box at the very bottom. I think that the spinoff is worth a brief mention somewhere.
  • Plot
    • "athwart" — okay I guess, but the word seems really odd to me compared to the rest of the article, which is written in a more informal tone.
    • "what might be Ilpalazzo's for Hyatt" — Is there a word missing here? The rest of the semicolon'd list are complete sentences.
    • "Looming subplots include the mysteries surrounding Dr. Shiouji's parents" — Shiouji is not mentioned previously. He either needs to be introduced properly, or a more radical solution adopted: Maybe the characters section should come before the plot section, and the first two paragraphs of the plot sectioned trimmed accordingly. At least, that would take care of some of the overlap.
  • Characters
    • "sprawling array of secondary characters" — I don't consider the secondary cast of Excel Saga particularly large (The main cast, however, undoubtedly is). It's normal for an episodic series to introduce one or two one new one-off characters in each episode. That should be toned down.
    • "demonstrates a radically different persona" — the Il Palazzo article says that in the manga, his second persone isn't actually all that different.
    • "Elgâla causes Excel much frustration, chiefly for her seeming lack of an internal monologue" — It's not her lack of internal monologue that's frustrating, it's that she has a lot of monologue, but it's always external - at least, that's what I infer, not being familiar with the manga.
    • "suddenly dying and reviving in quick succession—another major running gag, but she is noticeably Ilpalazzo's favorite." — I think her being Ilpalazzo's favorite has little to do with her dying, at least not explicitly. The sentences should be seperated.
    • "The Daitenzin are as follows:" — I have nothing against a brief listing, but neither the previous nor the following section are in list form.
    • The "other characters" section needs to distinguish more clearly between anime and manga. It does so for the Will, the Puchuus and Nabeshin, but not for Pedro, That Man or Key. Also, I would say that Pedro is in fact a more central character than, say, Shiouji or the Ropponmatsus, so I wouldn't start the section with "a wide array of minor characters", especially since you immediately go on to say "of varying importance" anyway. In short, you divide by affiliation initially, but continue to call all non-affiliated characters "minor", which isn't entirely correct. Also, noting that some characters in the manga are entirely unimportant is a bit superfluous, I think - every fictional work contains unimportant bit players, that needn't be specifically mentioned.
• to be continued... -- grm_wnr Esc 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on adding references to Puni Puni Poemy and other international versions in the main article, under Production. Perhaps you're right that "Characters" should come before plot--I'll think on this. Reading fourth wall makes me think it's appropriate (Excle on at least two occasions criticizes giving other characters better cuts, on several occasions talks about being a character and what the production staff are doing, and then there's Nabeshin per se), but I'll think more on it.--Monocrat 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'll continue the list here for clarity. The fourth wall thing is debatable, I have no strong feelings against it either.
  • Production
    • "...neighborhood trash collection days. In addition to inserting Fukuokan sayings, ..." — The switch between generally Japanese issues and Fukuokan specialities is really abrupt. The two points need to lead into each other.
    • Anime adaption section — As I said, mabe a few basic facts from the lead need to be restated here.
    • "While perhaps the most notable parody of another work in the manga" - I'd switch the order of that sentence, starting the section about the anime with what is most important on the manga really threw me off track (I originally thought the anime section had ended after only one paragraph).
    • "authorization scenes" — I'd like to see more of an explanation of what that actually means. It is explained, but I don't think it's entirely clear to a reader without prior knowledge that an anime representation of Rikuda appears and gives the following episode his personal stamp of approval (more or less volantarily).
    • "voice actors (声優, Sēyū?)" — Ah, the Seiyū thing. I'm not of the opinion that there's a real difference between "seiyū" and "voice actor", though I know that this is a permanent issue in fan circles. At the very least, I'd leave out the Kanji - this is not a name, only a technical term. The compromise solution I propose is "... prominent voice actors, including ..." (note the link target).
    • Speaking of names, isn't the really 100% super correct name for the band "Excel♥Girls", not "Excel Girls"?
    • "the twenty-sixth episode, "Going Too Far," never aired" — as said above, make sure that it never aired in any country, or change "never" to "in its original run on TV Tokyo".
• still to be continued... -- grm_wnr Esc 14:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to go through and change these things myself, but since there is a peer review running I might as well suggest changes here instead.

1. "Although they differ in subplots and other details" could be "Although the manga and anime differ in subplots and other details" just because that is better prose.
2. "Excel Saga the anime is very much an absurdist, gag-based comedy, and is very self-aware, relying on appearances from the original author, the director, and other members of the production crew." This sentences is almost personified, so I think it could be changed to something like "The anime adaption of Excel Saga is an absurdist, gag based comedy that has appearances from the original author, the director, and other members of the production crew."
3. "its humor likened" does not make sense, how about "its humor which was likened" or "its humor which is likened"
4. "Excel Saga the anime" is used twice in the lead. It isn't the name of the anime so it should be either "Excel Saga, the anime," (with commas) or "The anime adaption of Excel Saga" as I mentioned in point 2.
5. What is an Oubliette? It is mentioned in the lead but not explained in detail. Then it is linked for the first time later in the article.
6. "ACROSS is lead by Lord Ilpalazzo, who justifies his by saying that "[c]onquering one city is a reasonable plan that allows some leeway for setbacks,"" He justifies his what? I don't understand.
7. Menchi is mentioned first as a pet. Many people think he is a cat, I think it should be mentioned that he is a dog straight away.
8. "Ropponmatsu, their robotic colleague (colleagues in the anime)" The characters page uses : {{further|[[Gojyou Shiouji#Ropponmatsu|Ropponmatsu, Units 1 and 2]]}} to explain the Ropponmatsu Units 1 and 2 and something similar could be used such as linking "(colleagues in the anime)". The reader should be able to click something to find out why there are multiple Ropponmatsu instead of searching through the article(s) to find out why. The older one is called "Ropponmatsu 1" the first time she is mentioned but is called "Ropponmatsu Unit 1" later on the page and on the characters page. It is never stated that they are the same person.
9. "Broadly speaking, most the characters in Excel Saga the anime" In my opinion I would only use "Broadly speaking" in informal writing. This is another instance of "Excel Saga the anime" remembering that the reader believes that the real title is "Quack Experimental Anime Excel Saga" and that it is referred to in short as Excel Saga. Commas or rewrite as in point 4.
10. "the two storylines: the ACROSS-Daitenzin storyline and the Pedro-Nabeshin subplot" This is the first time the reader is informed of the subplot. That subplot spans the entire series but is yet to be mentioned. The reader is now thinking "who is Pedro? So there's a Pedro-Nabeshin subplot?" I think that the Pedro story should be mentioned under Plot especially since the Pedro family is again only touched on briefly under Other characters section.
11. "Initially the sole minion of , Excel approaches her work with an excess of determination and enthusiasm but a lack of foresight and understanding, always trying to win the praise and affection of Ilpalazzo" The first part of that sentence was stalled with a comma and Ilpalazzo, the subject of that statement is not directly linked to a continuation of that statement. Needs rewording.
12. "it is clear that he has from severe mental problems" should be "it is clear that he has formed severe mental problems" but I would rather "it is clear that he has developed severe mental problems" but either is fine.
13. I would link the first instace of running gag though it is not necessary.
14. "but seems both unaware of this and to hold her senior in high regard", I would say "but seems to be unaware of this and in contrast to Ilpalazzo, hold Excel in high regard" because it is a little more obvious about who likes/dislikes who.
15. "ancient civilization of Solaria" Perhaps it could be mentioned that this civilization is fictional. Also, the article is using American English. Does the American English spelling of civilization use a z or an s? I looked it up on Wikitionary but it doesn't say. [1]
16. "As noted earlier, " I think this statement is also informal. Personal preference though.
17. "dei ex machina" I don't understand what this means. I wonder how many readers will.
18. "In the this class too" Typo that should have been proofread and fixed before submitting this article to any kind of review process.
19. "There are, of course, also the anime's Puchuus" I think this is informal language, see earlier points, etc.
20. "with whom Nabeshin has unfinished business." Should the unfinished business be explained?
21. Where do the spoilers end? I think that {{endspoiler}} should be used somewhere
22. ”and he made Excel Saga as a way 'to laugh off that view." Three different sets of quotation marks? What is going on in this quote?
23. "neighborhood trash days" Needs to be explained briefly or just changed to "neighborhood trash collection days"
24. "called by Anime News Network" and "Anime News Network (ANN) puts it in the same class as" "ANN is of the opinion" Only the second instance is linked and has (ANN). A website is being personified this time. How about "It was written on the Anime News Network review that". Same goes for Gline, DO and any other websites.

--Squilibob 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take care of the informal and unclear language, the latinism, the (sadly numerous) typos, and the other minor concerns, although I think some errors you flag are stylistic differences rather than grammatical problems ("its humor likend..." especially).
• "Civilization" is indeed the American form.
• To be frank I don't share your concerns about personification per se, but I see how some of the text you cite could at once be improved and address your points. I don't, however, see the problem in personifying the reviews' websites (see earlier discussion), especially since the review is written for and on behalf of the organization.
• "Oubliette" is used in two different senses here: the hole down which Excle is dropped by Ilpalazzo, and the collection of notes appended by VIZ to the manga. The first usage warrants a wikilink, but occurs in the article after the second usage. "Oubliette," the hole, is more accurate than "hole" as a description of the device Ilpalazzo uses. Since it's wikilinked and in lower case in the text, I don't see the problem.
• Good point about naming the anime in the lead.

Thanks for the thorough reading and suggestions! --Monocrat 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your points, though I'm holding off on dealing with the references as you suggest. I've also left "As noted ealier." I'm afraid, though, that I don't understand your point about the Pedro-Nabeshin subplot: it is addressed in the "Plot" section (third paragraph).--Monocrat 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I apologize, I skipped that paragraph and the one after it for some reason. Glad to help with the minor changes that were made though.--Squilibob 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]