Talk:Aim for the Ace!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article[edit]

Was just an article about the 2004 dorama version with the barest mention of the manga. I changed the intro to reflect the whole picture a bit better, and added some japanese extern. links, but this really needs some serious attention from a fan. --zippedmartin 04:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to include information on who is fansubbing and where to get the series (illegally) especially when it's a copyrighted intellectual property and so I have deleted such information. --desundae

I'm pretty familiar with the series, so I cleaned up the article and added some new information. I'll also make another page for the J-drama version. Doinkies 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job that, lass. --zippedmartin 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Ace o Nerae! (anime and manga) → Ace o Nerae! – Ace o Nerae! used to be the article for the TV series, but now that the article about the TV series has been merged with Ace o Nerae! (anime and manga), I request that Ace o Nerae! (anime and manga) is moved to the correct title which is Ace o Nerae! --TonyM キタ━( °∀° )━ッ!! 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrxtalk • 01:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding moves, it should be moved to "Ēsu o Nerae!" because as it wasn't published in English, there's no need for a translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moocowsrule (talkcontribs) 00:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. You're responding to an RM from two years ago, you know.
  2. That's not how it works. The hierarchy of preference is official English adaptation → official Japanese name in English → official Japanese romanization → revised Hepburn romanization.
  3. There is an official Japanese name in English: Aim for the Ace!, as used on the official Shueisha site and printed on the bunko release of the manga. At the very least, you shouldn't have been removing this from the lead.
tan³ tx 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign, plus if "Aim for the Ace!" is used on Shueisha, then it should be the title of "Ace o Nerae!" or "Ēsu o Nerae!". わwaらraうu Smile! 04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move, II[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


Ēsu o Nerae!Aim for the Ace!: As I explained above, in the absence of a title used by an English-language adaptation, the relevant naming conventions say to use the English title used by the Japanese. As Aim for the Ace! is used both on the offical website and the bunkoban edition of the manga in Japan, this is what the article should be named. —tan³ tx 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I agree with you. Sorry to have caused so much trouble! わwaらraうu Smile! 07:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ace wo nerae movie[edit]

It's wrong that the movie is made of scenes from the series. It's all new animated. No animation from the first two series were used at all. I have removed all information claiming it would be a compilation movie.
Some clips from each show as evidence:
[1] Movie
[2] First series
[3] Second series

83.181.85.76 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aim for the Ace!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


A foreward: I don't take joy in criticizing an article like this. Sentence structure, referencing, all those things are pretty solid here. I was near to rubber stamping this article as a GA with just a few tweaks here and there.

But suddenly I stepped back, and realized how many holes in coverage there were. The article looked like a solid metal bowl, but it was actually a collander.

Please, please, take this review as a rallying cry to push on and find the amazing article waiting to burst out. This manga/anime sounds was loved and emulated to the point of cliché. It's a cultural touchstone in the genre. You truly do have the potential to bring something amazing to Wikipedia's table, but you've only built the factual pedestal for your sculpture, the art isn't there on top.


Most of this article is about release dates. Most of this article could be told in a spreadsheet. You desperately need to research more, well, whatever, and add more true prose, not just sentences connecting numbers and corporate names.

Take away release dates and companies, and the Media section, which is the majority of the article, just floats away as dust.

You tell us when the projects were first aired/were released. You tell us when they were released on DVD/as a tankobon. You tell us when they were re-released on DVD/as a light novel, and how many discs they were burned onto/volumes they were printed into. You tell us when they were released onto Blu-ray/released in Italian comics.

Clearly Ace! was a success. We know that 15 million copies were sold of the manga. We know that the series inspired a young Shuzo Matsuoka to pick up a racket. But those are the only definable measure of success from the century in which the works were created.

While I suppose that it's possible, I find it hard to believe that no media outlet reviewed the project before this century. Even if the mainstream media was too staid to cover popular culture, did Japan's youth culture of the era not create fanzines?

The reception section says that Aim was "inspiration of another sports anime"... which one? Was this other anime also based on a manga? The series "set many of the conventions of shojo-ai", to the point where "it became a cliché." Which conventions of shojo-ai can be attributed to Ace? All of them? Just a few?

What inspired Sumika Yamamoto to create the manga originally? Did Sumika love tennis? Was it just an exotic setting to place the characters in? Or perhaps Margaret provided the plot outline, and Sumika just worked within tight guidelines?

Tokyo Movie: were they a struggling startup boosted by the chance to adapt a popular serial, or was it just another project for an established studio?

Was the first anime series based on the first 1973-1975 run of Aim in Margaret, or did they also adapt the 1978 to 1980 plotline at the same time? Or was the second run adapted into the second anime?

Did Japan have a television ratings system? In other words, was Shin Ace o Nerae! a result of big ratings?

Sit down, and imagine the year is 1999. There is no Wikipedia, but you've got a geocities.jp site. What are you going to write, that day, in 1999? Whatever you come up with, it's pretty much everything you're missing here.


Here is my actual prose critic for part of the article. It is not complete, I can review further if the nominator is still wanting to pursue this GAN.

Drama

  • One of my friends is teaching English in Japan at some private school, and she recently went to see a theatrical production of Sailor Moon. When I saw this heading, I thought this was another case of a playright mining familiar material for the stage. Perhaps "Television drama", "Live action television"? Does Japanese television recognise the concept of a mini-series? The fact it intentionally ran that briefly fits it into that category.
  • Does the Japanese media report on television ratings, like the North American media? Were there any critical reviews of how well or poorly the story was adapted to this format?
  • Given that you list the tennis supervisor, was Shuzou thus a major competitive tennis player in Japan? If so, I'd venture a number of English readers of this article don't know of their significance. If not, why bother listing them?
  • "A special episode was released direct-to-video": Was this continuing the plot, a prequel, or a standalone plot?

Video games

  • Is pachinko really a video game? They're mechanical, sure, but even the modern ones with video aren't video games.

CDs

  • "VIP performs...": since there's no wikilink, you really should clarify whether VIP is a solo singer, a group, a flutist...

Reception and legacy

  • Since TV Asahi has TV in its name, we can assume that the web poll was "Top 100" TV series? You don't specify.

Checklinks


To GA Cup judges, I hope you don't interpret any of this as unnecessarily long text. I set out to do my usual sentence-by-sentence review, and halfway through I decided to abandon format, and write the larger commentary. I'm not looking for extra points, I'm looking to provide meaningful steering for the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Good introductory text, Zanimum. You write to do not demotivate people; it's very nice. I don't take it personally, so you can do all the critics you want to now or in another occasion. They are good and very constructive critics. That's why you're good. And, all your critics are very fair. However, I have my side too.
The media section generally is basically "the original release and broadcast information". About facts on early reception or creation, I can't do much for it. My main problem for this article is the lack of sources. I have almost literally gone through all the English-language sources that are available online. The lack of details in reception or production is because the sources don't give such details. Of course, probably there is more info on Japanese sources or even English-language magazines that I don't have access to. (In fact, I've just found an interview that I posted on the talkpage... Hm, may your friend be able to translate it?)
To your "actual" concerns:
  • I really don't know if they use the term "mini-series" but none of the sources call the drama a mini-series
  • I probably can find something on ratings (recent info is easier to find than info on the period the manga was published...). Reviews are more difficult because my Japanese isn't that advanced
  • Fixed
  • Hm... I've found the info on the source, and just noticed an error...
  • They're kind of arcade games; changed to just "games"
  • Again, the problem is that the source doesn't give specific information
  • Fixed
  • Fixed Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zanimum:? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Placing this back in the queue's since it's another one of Zanimum's abandoned reviews. Wizardman 14:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview[edit]

I found an interview (http://www.excite.co.jp/News/sports_clm/20140922/Shueishapn_20140922_36111.html) that possibly can be useful for a "production/development" section; if someone can translate it, of course. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aim for the Ace!/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Will complete this review within a day or two. Thanks Jaguar 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

  • "Later, Shueisha collected the chapters and published them in 18 tankōbon volumes" - is Shueisha the publisher? Would be worth mentioning who they are to unfamiliar readers (like myself)
Yeah. "its first chapter was published by Shueisha in the Japanese magazine Margaret in January 1973." Isn't this sentence enough to clarify it? If not, do you have a more specific suggestion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would thinking that the lead could summarise the article better. For instance the last paragraph could contain more content from the "Reception and legacy" section. It could expand a little from "It is considered a classic by anime and manga critics" - what did critics really think about it?
This part summarize the only three English-language critics which I could find (which is the last paragraph of "Reception"). As a summary, I've tried to give readers somewhat a consensus of them. What would you include? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was directed by Osamu Dezaki and lasted 26 episodes" - were all the episodes directed by Osamu Dezaki?
He is the credited as the general director. Individual episodes have not its directors specified. How should I put it? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe something like "Osamu Dezaki served as the general director of all 26 episodes", or leave it alone? Jaguar 13:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "it was broadcast by Nippon Television from April 10, 1978, and March 31, 1979" - should this be it was broadcast by Nippon Television from April 10, 1978 to March 31, 1979 or am I wrong?
Yep. My bad. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would consider renaming the Games section to Video games, if it does not include any pre-1980s games
I'd prefer it to. In the last review by Zanimum, however, he pointed out that pachinko games are not video games.
  • "The anime was considered a hit on Japanese television and though aimed toward girls" - curious, what age group might this be?
schoolgirls, per Clements. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

  • The toolserver has noticed a few vaporized links. I'll leave the examples below:
  • These two links (not sure if they're in the article at all) [4], [5] redirect to a main page
Archived with WebCite. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As with these three links the toolserver picked, up; [6], [7], [8], dead, but it's strange because I don't know if these are in the article
All archived with Internet Archive. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But other than that, I spot nothing wrong with the referencing, it all has the correct date/publisher/author format

On hold[edit]

This was interesting to read. It looks like this could be a worthy GA, so I'll put this on hold for at least seven days until everything has been addressed. Thanks Jaguar 12:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review, Jaguar. I would like that you take a look at the article after my changes and my commentaries here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted[edit]

Thanks for your fast response, I'm happy with the way this article is written and I think it's safe to say that this meets the criteria now. Well done Good article Jaguar 13:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aim for the Ace!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aim for the Ace!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)