I believe all the points asked in the
previous nom have been adressed. Specifically, print sources have been added, several experienced editors copyedited the article, character design has been expanded, and the video game has been cut off to its own article. IMO, this is a thorough, well written article on a particularly difficult subject. Even thought wikipedia is
not censored, an effort has been made to keep the article relatively spoiler-free and out of universe. Reception section could be expanded as more sources are available, but I'm afraid this would set the article off-balance. Thanks for your interest.--
SidiLemine13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment The Wiktionary links are informative. The link to artifact clears up any confusion on meaning and its alternative spelling and the link to blasé explains what it means concisely. The link to charm on Wict. is better than a link to
amulet which is where you end up after the disambiguation page for
charm. --
Squilibob06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: Too much white space in the characters section. Avoiding being overly detailed, but give enough text to line up with the images provided at least. This pretty much means a little less than doubling each characters' blurb.--
SeizureDog12:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. Would it be possible to put half the pictures on one side and half on the other (alternating)? That might solve the problem of white space and might even look better. —
DarkShikaritalk/contribs12:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
That's what was originally done, but a user chenged it to this to align with other articles of the same kind. I'll change it back to see if it solves the problem.--
SidiLemine13:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: the writing needs some work. In places it feels too conversational, and occasionally seems unclear or clumsy ("Lain draws influence from philosophical subjects"; "who has his own agenda that he carries through"; "many acceptations of the term"; "no surprise that definite influences are scarce at best"). It also includes some purple prose ("The first ripple on the pond of Lain's lonely life"; "her cold-as-ice mother"), however that's not necessarily a problem. Why does "war of ideas" need a (sic)? I think these things could quickly be resolved by a copy-editor (or two) familiar with the subject giving the article a brush-up. In general, a very good piece of work on a subject I know zip about.
Angus McLellan(Talk)19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Those aren't really copyediting issues; they are mainly content issues, so I can't help there, since I've never seen the show. Also, a lot of those unclear statements are in the lead, and developed in later sections, as far as I see. — Deckiller20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I think the problem with those statements is how they are written as opposed to how clear they are. Same goes for "His relation to Lain is a mixture of fatherly authority and distant fear" and "She is the one to first try to break Lain's shell ...", "Mika is considered by some the only normal member...", and "He has been depicted as a "techno punk teenager" by some...". All four have been added to the article in the last day which is a shame because it is delaying this FAC. --
Squilibob22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
That explains it. I never really noticed most of those weasel/peacock terms and sentences, because they were added recently. They should be omitted; it's never a good idea to put filler in. — Deckiller03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I jut added a {{who}} tag to a statement about English language reviewers. This statement was not attributed or cited.--
ZayZayEM03:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply