Talk:Madlax

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics 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.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)

Perhaps more spoilers?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm currently working on the Russian article, which is well on its way to the featured pantheon right now. The election would probably be over in a couple of weeks, so I'm likely gonna expand this one afterwards. :) --Koveras ^☭ 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian translation

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)[reply]

Looks fantastic! :P Thank you for mentioning the yuri that is suggested in it. Kyaa the Catlord 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) As for yuri, there are many reviews out there that list MADLAX as a shoujo-ai anime, so I decided that it's worth explaining. :) --Koveras ^☭ 08:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

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.

The lead is very short. It should detail the production staff, a short synopsis (or theme, or description) of the plot, and any simple detail that explain if there is anything really distinctive in this anime.
- Kov: I agree that staff and distinctive features should be added, though I can't really think of what to write on the latter right now. :( As for the synopsis, we already have a full section about that, is it OK for the two to be redundant?
  - The last point is not the most important. About the synopsis, the lead is supposed to be a succinct summary of the wole article, "in a nutshell". So don't be afraid to be redundant there. On the other side, you probably shouldn't have redundancy between the character and synopsis sections (like the 98% thing).--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is unsourced. You will need sources for almost every affirmation. Remember it's OK to cite the anime, as long as you give a complete sentence, and advise the episode.
- Kov: I admit I have a problem with recognizing the statements that need to be sourced. :( I'll probably need to ask you or someone to mark them with "facts" once translation is copied over (tomorrow, if nothing goes wrong). More importantly: is it really mandatory to write complete sentences rather than just episode numbers? Because the references can become real *huge*, as some episodes (especially in the end) contain multiple important revelations.
  - Basically, in a perfect wikiworld, everything should be sourced. I'll try and tag to make that clear. It is not really mandatory to cite the exact facts, but then you can't take many liberties. If you cite a sentence, you can sum up a reccuring idea; if you just cite the episode, you have to stick to the pure facts.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia section is actaully very interesting, compared to most trivia section; however, it must be merged with the rest of the article. There's a war going on against trivia sections.
- Kov: I have already read about that somewhere, so I considered moving some trivia to the other sections: the easter egg goes to "Releases"; Four Civilizations and fnords - to the "Holy Books"; Kajiura-related infos to the staff section (see above); Laetitia and, possibly, Colonel Burton to "Characters" and eventually a separate article (see below). The only things that are really trivial are: Darwin, Hong Kong, Hitomi no Kakera, red shoes and Maneki Neko.
  - Darwin and Hong Kong are actually trivial, and as such, they should be deleted, unless you are willing to fill a "setting" section. The reason why trivia sections aren't liked is that if it's trivial, it's probably irrelevant and unencyclopedic. If you want to keep it, Maneki Neko should move to characters, and Hitomi no Katera to "songs". Red shoes will be very hard to pass as not being Original Research, so they'll probably have to go, unless you find a supporting source.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The characters section is too long. Consider having a separate article in the future for all the detailed characters descriptions, but for now only the main characters should be mentioned in the main article.
- Kov: Then I suppose that'll have to be Margaret, Madlax, Vanessa, Elenore, Monday, Carrossea and Limelda. The rest will have to go to a separate article. Additionally, what is meant by "mentioned"? How detailed should the information about them be? The problem is, if we cut the chara section significantly, we'll have to expand the plot summary, since it will become incomprehensible. Summary is already huge as it is despite the six hours I've spent condensing it. However, now that I think of it, the problem can be solved by wikilinking particular names in the summary to the sections of the chara article, like I did in Exosquad articles...
  - Seven main characters seems a lot, but then again I didn't see it. Mentioned means that they appear in the article. If you are going to have a characters article, the info in the main should be scarce. Look at Planetes for a good example, and at Serial Experiments Lain for a less clean one. Don't worry about having a long plot summary, as it will be trimmed down afterwards. Most plot summaries begin small, then get bigger and bigger and more trivial until someone rewrites it from scratch, and that two or three times, before they stabilize. Wikilinking is always a good solution, but the article should still be understandable in itself.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding pictures, main characters would be good.
- Kov: I have already remarked that the pictures will be added once the translation is copied over to the article. :) I have them all nice and properly tagged on the Rupedia. %)
  - Good for you! :)--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weapons section is generally frowned upon as irrelevant, but I love the format you gave to this one, so I'll refrain.
- Kov: Well, we can move it to the Terminology section and rename it to "Background" or something like that. Like, the section "Background" containing subsections "Terminology", "Holy Books", and "Weapons". OR we can simply stick with a link to the BTF Wiki article in the refs, as it was done in the Russia article, since BTFW contains all the guns mentioned in the table plus lots of links to other specialized sites.
  - Sounds reasonable. Still, beware of not being too in-universe in your perspective. Articles about fiction should always be written from a "real world" perspective, and as such the place available to describe the background is limited. About at least half the article should be baout the anime, as opposed to about what's in the anime. Like I said: inspirations, etc. If you put too much in-world stuff, you'll get sacked.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the anime, but the holy books seem to deserve an actual section, with phrases and descriptions, instead of just a table.
- Kov: Well, they DO have a larger section in my translation, if that's what you mean... It contains their background, purpose, and general description. The only thing I can think that we can add are the names of the original owners (at the start of the series).
  - That probably won't be needed.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is generally expected of a good anime article is to have a section for the critics and reception (sales, prizes, reviews...), and another one for the origins and inspiration (with citations from the authors).
- Kov: That's a bit problematic, for, as I've remarked in "Reception", the series has relieved *very* moderate attention. In fact, it's very hard to find decent reviews about it and as for the prizes, I'm afraid it hasn't got any. ^^ Another point is that I have no idea where to get the sales data for animes... The problem with the origins and inspiration is that most of the info is likely contained within The Bible artbook and it has never been translated from Japanese.
  - This will definitely be a problem. Most of the comments you want to make about the series have to come from somebody else's mouth, so reviews are generally the best place to start. If it is out on DVD in the USA, you'll probably be able to find review (see anime on dvd, or others). I had the same problem working on Serial Experiments Lain; you might have a look and pick from the references at the bottom, there's a dozen or so DVD review sites.--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to get bugged by the image nazis out there, you should specify where you got the image madlaw.jpg, and justify that it's been released.
- Kov: You mean, the top-right corner one? I think that's from AniDB, but originally it was in The Bible. I can even get the page number if necessary... Low-res promotional artworks *are* fair-use, aren't they?..
  - Oh yeah, definitely. But you still have to say where you picked it from, and "promotionnal" it a bit tricky... Some say it's any kind of promotion, others that it's only what has been delivered in rights-free packages to news agencies... You probably won't have a problem with that one if you don't want to get to FAC.

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)[reply]

No-no, I was considering to nominate it for a peer review anyway, so I'm glad you volunteered. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 11:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until you finish to tag for facts and to start looking for reviews, etc. Let me know when you're ready. Cheers!--SidiLemine 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]