This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not only is the third paragraph awful gramatically (the politician wants to kill himself by way of Madlax, if you don't get it), but it's the only reason the spoiler warning is in there. I would be much obliged if somebody could refactor it. - glasnost 03:00, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
That could be a solution for the problem, very useful for those who prefer to know more of the series without have to watch it entirely, however, this could be bad for others, anyhood, I think someone could talk about symbolism ofthe series, bcs there is a lot of it (I think one of the reason why no one else has attacked Madlax is bcs most of the peeps dindt see some ideas reflected in the argument and characters, anti-war followers (I am not one of them) will find Madlax really dissapointment) -- General Kane Nash 02:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I just want to know how much 'spoilers' are allowed to spoil. See, the existing page just gives very non-spoiler-ish information about the characters, so I don't see why it is for the most part even marked 'spoilers'. We could always have a spoiler-specific section in which we say what MADLAX, Margaret and Laticia actually ARE, I dunno. -- 59.167.107.150 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, folks, I've completed the translation of the Russian article that is currently featured on Rupedia. The text is available in my sandbox, and I intend to simply copy-paste the whole thing into this article (overwriting the old content). Therefore I ask everyone to check whether I have missed something out that is the article right now, but isn't in my translation. Thank you. PS: Oh, and I'll copy the missing screenshots from Russian Wikipedia when they are needed. Right now, I'll go translate the episode list. PPS: Please, don't mind the spelling mistakes, grammar and incorrect name spellings at this point, right now, it's only about the content. -- Koveras ☭ 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A few points worth mentionning, as you said the article went FA on the Russian Wiki and I expect you will want to have this one recognised also.
Basically that's it. I know you didn't ask for a full peer review, and I hope you don't take that badly, but it's always good to have these things lined up from the start. That's a great article anyway, keep it up!-- SidiLemine 10:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the section has turned a bit illegible, here is the to-do list:
Well, that's the general plan, I suppose. -- Koveras ☭ 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems we edit at the same hours! I've had an edit conflict with your last one. :) Generally I agree with your to-do. What do you mean by IRL?
Here is my original text: This is impressive! That's a lot of work you're putting in here. I'll start a new list to make conversation easier:
This is getting very good. It will soon be the moment to put it up for peer review, and then, if all goes well, GAC!-- SidiLemine 11:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm done with the general restructuring. I'll need more finishing touches, but I'll leave that for tomorrow. Sidi, it's your turn. :) -- Koveras ☭ 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Madlax OST got a "Best of 2004" award from AnimeReactor community... Is it OK to add it to the article? -- Koveras ☭ 09:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now, all pictures (except in the characters section) are right-aligned which is a bit dull... Maybe we should left-align some? The problem is, I lack artistic taste to do that alone... -- Koveras ☭ 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guess what I have found! %) A whole site with a nigh-official status filled with Madlax images. ^^; I'll replace those lousy screenshots in the chara section with the pictures from the website later today... -- Koveras ☭ 06:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have "come up with something". Can you please take a look? -- Koveras ☭ 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So, should I play over the changes from my sandbox to the actual article? -- Koveras ☭ 10:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just discovered the {{
cite episode}} template. Should we format the episode refs with it? ^^ Like this: "
Gun Dance ~dance~". Madlax. Episode 01. 2004-04-05. 3:23 minutes in.
TV Tokyo. {{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help) --
Koveras
☭
13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time we submit it for GAC. As I said before, I'm pretty sure it will need to be trimmed down to the essential sourced information for FA, but it might just have a chance for GA. Just need to cover the citation needed tags, and post it. If it doesn't do the trick this time, it'll give a better idea what to work on. I don't think more copyediting is needed right now.-- SidiLemine 12:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Sidi, there is something I wanted to ask you: you said above that "it's OK to cite the anime, as long as you give a complete sentence, and advise the episode". However, on the peer review page, Monocrat ( talk • contribs) expressed concerns "about the reliance on the primary source for citations". How should I see that point? %) -- Koveras ☭ 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, how does it look now? -- Koveras ☭ 10:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Tools -> Page info
) it reports 29.21 kB, so it isn't "long". --
Squilibob
01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)This article has been listed for GAC since the 14th of January.-- SidiLemine 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
And now it is reviewed!
I graded this article on 7 criteria:
Congratulations, it passes! The only thing that I had a problem with was the table of voice actors- all of the major chars have it already listed under their descriptions, and the non-major chars aren't even listed, and thus don't need their voice actors listed either. I was going to put this article on hold for that, but since it was just one thing, I just edited it out myself. -- PresN 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, with VA table removed, we once again have a whole lot of white space to the right of the staff list. Since I don't like that (it gives an impression that the article is "stretced long" with lists), I suggest that we make a table out of Staff section the way we had VAs formatted before. And music will become a separate section instead of a subsection. -- Koveras ☭ 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
With the previous issue solved, how about moving the TOC like this? Also, I have my doubts about Releases section: maybe we should move the link to the episodes list up a section and then rename the "Bible" subsection to "Franchise" and make it a section itself? Sidi, I need your critical point of view! ^^ -- Koveras ☭ 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've updated my sandbox with what I've found thus far. Any more suggestions? :) -- Koveras ☭ 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So, should we try our luck with FAC or first run the article through another PR? >_< -- Koveras ☭ 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the recent formatting by Geuiwogbil ( talk • contribs), I want to remark that although that formatting is all right for a VG article, in an anime series' one, it becomes a little messy: we have the name of the series in italics, the episode number, the time, the character's name in bold, and the quote itself without any separators around it. By comparison, in FFX, it's only the last two parts. In any case, my proposal would be to return the quotation marks, so that separating the formal data and the quote itself becomes easier. -- Koveras ☭ 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel it is more appropriate to take the sentences verbatim when quoting something. That is why I added a " sic" after that, in case someone missed it. -- Koveras ☭ 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Just asking... -- Koveras ☭ 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw this article on the FAC list. Made a few minor changes (also, suite 101 . com is apparently on the spamblacklist, so that ref may have to be messed with), but some other comments:
Okay, this has two references backing it up, but they're from reviews of the second DVD before later episodes were released. I would have said this too at the time, but it's not really true in light of the whole series. There's one faction, Enfant, and it controls all the pseudo-factions (the sides of the civil war, the big evil corporation, etc.) except Margaret Burton's checkbook, pretty much. For sure, the factional conflict issue is raised earlier, but it's dropped nigh-completely later, and the only ones opposing Enfant are individual characters. I'd be in favor of dropping this comment.
Another comment while on the lead section: There's currently no reference to Yuki Kajiura. I don't think that I was the only person who watched the show mainly under the assurance of at least having awesome music.
Okay, I don't have access to the insert that's referenced here, but isn't this a bit too much hyperbole? What does "spiraling ever closer and evolving along the central ideas of the series" even mean? I tried something a bit simpler.
For sure, the series says she's a "kind killer" (not that her actions support this, but details), but not so sure on the "charismatic" part. Is she called that somewhere? I don't really recall her leading people, making tons of friends, and so on, but I could be off-base here.
Isn't she more an agent of the G-S government? Which, granted, is controlled by Enfant, but I don't think she knows that at first.
Wait. The ritual succeeded just fine and that's why he died, which is what the plot summary article says too. Am I missing something here? Perhaps a better phrasing would be "Carrossea's memories are returned as well at his request, but he finds out that he died 12 years ago and dissappears" or the like?
Not sure if there's a good term for this, but that wasn't quite my impression. He wanted a radical democracy where everybody does whatever they like uninhibited, and he also thought (apparently correctly?) that people become raving psychotic loons when this happens. "World war" implies coordinated clashing powers with organized armies, while he was going for something more like "worldwide murderous madness and disorder."
Okay, yes, this is an encyclopedia, but this phrasing is entirely too sterile. How about "while drunk" with the blue link still heading to alcohol intoxication?
Mm. This gets into a fundamental problem with the "cite sources" approach of Wikipedia. Suppose an average work (movie, book, TV series, whatever) gets 50 good reviews and 50 bad reviews. It's quite possible to, by selectively citing, make it look like it received generally positive reviews with a few malcontents, or alternately mostly cite the bad reviews and make it look awful with only a few people who enjoyed it. Not sure if there's a good way around it.
Anyway, I don't want to insert my own sophistry by randomly citing bad reviews, but I'll just say that lines like "Critics called Madlax "thought-provoking"" suggest a rather more positive response than I understand / hope happened, since critics have also called Madlax horrible and not thought-provoking too. Same with the "received only moderate (though generally approving) attention from the critics." Also, statements like "which lead some to name Madlax the better of the two" (referencing Noir) I think are best left out if included at all; it's a truism that some people will think Madlax is better than Noir, but I would be completely shocked if it was anything approaching a majority, which this statement implies. SnowFire 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally we have someone here who actually watched Madlax. %) Replies in order:
Is it possible that Margaret Madlax and Letita all represent Freud's theories of the Id, ego, and super-ego just a thought, I have nothing to really back this up with. -- 67.177.36.225 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I may not be able to find it, it could be me drawing my own conclusions. And I know Orignal Research is not premitted by Wiki. But glad to see this is a FA. -- 24.10.234.104 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The article has been promoted! A big thanks to all, especially SidiLemine, SnowFire, Kazu-kun, and Deckiller. ^^ -- Koveras ☭ 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Rhynri 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Has checked this page and found there to be 2 dead links... ref. [60]^ (sect. [11]^) && 'External Links: MadLax in AnimeNfo... (Unsure of Marking Strategy Here...)
This goes to everyone who participated in the improvement of this article: does anyone feel up to translating the thing into Simple English? :D Unfortunately, I can't get the German translation any higher than GA status because Germans have weird criteria for their FAs (e.g.: "FA must be at least 80 kB big"; it's not explicitly stated but implied). And I don't speak any other languages. ^^; Though I must also admit that I've never edited Simple English articles before so I may not be aware of customs and content guidelines there... -- Koveras ☭ 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not only is the third paragraph awful gramatically (the politician wants to kill himself by way of Madlax, if you don't get it), but it's the only reason the spoiler warning is in there. I would be much obliged if somebody could refactor it. - glasnost 03:00, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
That could be a solution for the problem, very useful for those who prefer to know more of the series without have to watch it entirely, however, this could be bad for others, anyhood, I think someone could talk about symbolism ofthe series, bcs there is a lot of it (I think one of the reason why no one else has attacked Madlax is bcs most of the peeps dindt see some ideas reflected in the argument and characters, anti-war followers (I am not one of them) will find Madlax really dissapointment) -- General Kane Nash 02:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I just want to know how much 'spoilers' are allowed to spoil. See, the existing page just gives very non-spoiler-ish information about the characters, so I don't see why it is for the most part even marked 'spoilers'. We could always have a spoiler-specific section in which we say what MADLAX, Margaret and Laticia actually ARE, I dunno. -- 59.167.107.150 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, folks, I've completed the translation of the Russian article that is currently featured on Rupedia. The text is available in my sandbox, and I intend to simply copy-paste the whole thing into this article (overwriting the old content). Therefore I ask everyone to check whether I have missed something out that is the article right now, but isn't in my translation. Thank you. PS: Oh, and I'll copy the missing screenshots from Russian Wikipedia when they are needed. Right now, I'll go translate the episode list. PPS: Please, don't mind the spelling mistakes, grammar and incorrect name spellings at this point, right now, it's only about the content. -- Koveras ☭ 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A few points worth mentionning, as you said the article went FA on the Russian Wiki and I expect you will want to have this one recognised also.
Basically that's it. I know you didn't ask for a full peer review, and I hope you don't take that badly, but it's always good to have these things lined up from the start. That's a great article anyway, keep it up!-- SidiLemine 10:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the section has turned a bit illegible, here is the to-do list:
Well, that's the general plan, I suppose. -- Koveras ☭ 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems we edit at the same hours! I've had an edit conflict with your last one. :) Generally I agree with your to-do. What do you mean by IRL?
Here is my original text: This is impressive! That's a lot of work you're putting in here. I'll start a new list to make conversation easier:
This is getting very good. It will soon be the moment to put it up for peer review, and then, if all goes well, GAC!-- SidiLemine 11:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm done with the general restructuring. I'll need more finishing touches, but I'll leave that for tomorrow. Sidi, it's your turn. :) -- Koveras ☭ 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Madlax OST got a "Best of 2004" award from AnimeReactor community... Is it OK to add it to the article? -- Koveras ☭ 09:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now, all pictures (except in the characters section) are right-aligned which is a bit dull... Maybe we should left-align some? The problem is, I lack artistic taste to do that alone... -- Koveras ☭ 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guess what I have found! %) A whole site with a nigh-official status filled with Madlax images. ^^; I'll replace those lousy screenshots in the chara section with the pictures from the website later today... -- Koveras ☭ 06:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have "come up with something". Can you please take a look? -- Koveras ☭ 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So, should I play over the changes from my sandbox to the actual article? -- Koveras ☭ 10:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just discovered the {{
cite episode}} template. Should we format the episode refs with it? ^^ Like this: "
Gun Dance ~dance~". Madlax. Episode 01. 2004-04-05. 3:23 minutes in.
TV Tokyo. {{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help) --
Koveras
☭
13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time we submit it for GAC. As I said before, I'm pretty sure it will need to be trimmed down to the essential sourced information for FA, but it might just have a chance for GA. Just need to cover the citation needed tags, and post it. If it doesn't do the trick this time, it'll give a better idea what to work on. I don't think more copyediting is needed right now.-- SidiLemine 12:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Sidi, there is something I wanted to ask you: you said above that "it's OK to cite the anime, as long as you give a complete sentence, and advise the episode". However, on the peer review page, Monocrat ( talk • contribs) expressed concerns "about the reliance on the primary source for citations". How should I see that point? %) -- Koveras ☭ 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, how does it look now? -- Koveras ☭ 10:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Tools -> Page info
) it reports 29.21 kB, so it isn't "long". --
Squilibob
01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)This article has been listed for GAC since the 14th of January.-- SidiLemine 09:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
And now it is reviewed!
I graded this article on 7 criteria:
Congratulations, it passes! The only thing that I had a problem with was the table of voice actors- all of the major chars have it already listed under their descriptions, and the non-major chars aren't even listed, and thus don't need their voice actors listed either. I was going to put this article on hold for that, but since it was just one thing, I just edited it out myself. -- PresN 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, with VA table removed, we once again have a whole lot of white space to the right of the staff list. Since I don't like that (it gives an impression that the article is "stretced long" with lists), I suggest that we make a table out of Staff section the way we had VAs formatted before. And music will become a separate section instead of a subsection. -- Koveras ☭ 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
With the previous issue solved, how about moving the TOC like this? Also, I have my doubts about Releases section: maybe we should move the link to the episodes list up a section and then rename the "Bible" subsection to "Franchise" and make it a section itself? Sidi, I need your critical point of view! ^^ -- Koveras ☭ 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've updated my sandbox with what I've found thus far. Any more suggestions? :) -- Koveras ☭ 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So, should we try our luck with FAC or first run the article through another PR? >_< -- Koveras ☭ 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the recent formatting by Geuiwogbil ( talk • contribs), I want to remark that although that formatting is all right for a VG article, in an anime series' one, it becomes a little messy: we have the name of the series in italics, the episode number, the time, the character's name in bold, and the quote itself without any separators around it. By comparison, in FFX, it's only the last two parts. In any case, my proposal would be to return the quotation marks, so that separating the formal data and the quote itself becomes easier. -- Koveras ☭ 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel it is more appropriate to take the sentences verbatim when quoting something. That is why I added a " sic" after that, in case someone missed it. -- Koveras ☭ 15:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Just asking... -- Koveras ☭ 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw this article on the FAC list. Made a few minor changes (also, suite 101 . com is apparently on the spamblacklist, so that ref may have to be messed with), but some other comments:
Okay, this has two references backing it up, but they're from reviews of the second DVD before later episodes were released. I would have said this too at the time, but it's not really true in light of the whole series. There's one faction, Enfant, and it controls all the pseudo-factions (the sides of the civil war, the big evil corporation, etc.) except Margaret Burton's checkbook, pretty much. For sure, the factional conflict issue is raised earlier, but it's dropped nigh-completely later, and the only ones opposing Enfant are individual characters. I'd be in favor of dropping this comment.
Another comment while on the lead section: There's currently no reference to Yuki Kajiura. I don't think that I was the only person who watched the show mainly under the assurance of at least having awesome music.
Okay, I don't have access to the insert that's referenced here, but isn't this a bit too much hyperbole? What does "spiraling ever closer and evolving along the central ideas of the series" even mean? I tried something a bit simpler.
For sure, the series says she's a "kind killer" (not that her actions support this, but details), but not so sure on the "charismatic" part. Is she called that somewhere? I don't really recall her leading people, making tons of friends, and so on, but I could be off-base here.
Isn't she more an agent of the G-S government? Which, granted, is controlled by Enfant, but I don't think she knows that at first.
Wait. The ritual succeeded just fine and that's why he died, which is what the plot summary article says too. Am I missing something here? Perhaps a better phrasing would be "Carrossea's memories are returned as well at his request, but he finds out that he died 12 years ago and dissappears" or the like?
Not sure if there's a good term for this, but that wasn't quite my impression. He wanted a radical democracy where everybody does whatever they like uninhibited, and he also thought (apparently correctly?) that people become raving psychotic loons when this happens. "World war" implies coordinated clashing powers with organized armies, while he was going for something more like "worldwide murderous madness and disorder."
Okay, yes, this is an encyclopedia, but this phrasing is entirely too sterile. How about "while drunk" with the blue link still heading to alcohol intoxication?
Mm. This gets into a fundamental problem with the "cite sources" approach of Wikipedia. Suppose an average work (movie, book, TV series, whatever) gets 50 good reviews and 50 bad reviews. It's quite possible to, by selectively citing, make it look like it received generally positive reviews with a few malcontents, or alternately mostly cite the bad reviews and make it look awful with only a few people who enjoyed it. Not sure if there's a good way around it.
Anyway, I don't want to insert my own sophistry by randomly citing bad reviews, but I'll just say that lines like "Critics called Madlax "thought-provoking"" suggest a rather more positive response than I understand / hope happened, since critics have also called Madlax horrible and not thought-provoking too. Same with the "received only moderate (though generally approving) attention from the critics." Also, statements like "which lead some to name Madlax the better of the two" (referencing Noir) I think are best left out if included at all; it's a truism that some people will think Madlax is better than Noir, but I would be completely shocked if it was anything approaching a majority, which this statement implies. SnowFire 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally we have someone here who actually watched Madlax. %) Replies in order:
Is it possible that Margaret Madlax and Letita all represent Freud's theories of the Id, ego, and super-ego just a thought, I have nothing to really back this up with. -- 67.177.36.225 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I may not be able to find it, it could be me drawing my own conclusions. And I know Orignal Research is not premitted by Wiki. But glad to see this is a FA. -- 24.10.234.104 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The article has been promoted! A big thanks to all, especially SidiLemine, SnowFire, Kazu-kun, and Deckiller. ^^ -- Koveras ☭ 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Rhynri 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Has checked this page and found there to be 2 dead links... ref. [60]^ (sect. [11]^) && 'External Links: MadLax in AnimeNfo... (Unsure of Marking Strategy Here...)
This goes to everyone who participated in the improvement of this article: does anyone feel up to translating the thing into Simple English? :D Unfortunately, I can't get the German translation any higher than GA status because Germans have weird criteria for their FAs (e.g.: "FA must be at least 80 kB big"; it's not explicitly stated but implied). And I don't speak any other languages. ^^; Though I must also admit that I've never edited Simple English articles before so I may not be aware of customs and content guidelines there... -- Koveras ☭ 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)