# Talk:Phantom Blood

To anyone who cares enough to edit this article, you should remove the external link at the bottom of the page: www.jojo-movie.com is now a Japanese porn site and has nothing to do with the JoJo series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.104.70 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 

I get you guys are really picky about providing sources for things, but are you REALLY going to try and argue that a group of four characters who have the same names as all of the members of Led Zeppelin are NOT named after Led Zeppelin? Or that a character whose name romanizes to "Tompetti" ISN'T a reference to the lead singer of the Heartbreakers? 74.215.30.124 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phantom Blood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
 As the character list is very short, it would probably be a better idea to simply merge it to the plot section; additionally, a link to List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters should be added to the section. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly what I initially wanted to do, but I worried that editors who love listing fictional elements would immediately revert a change like that (which I see happening a ton in anime/manga articles) - so yes, I'm happy to do this. Regarding the JoJo character list, I've added it, but I don't really think that list even has any reason to exist -  it just consists of summaries of each JoJo part with links to the character sections in each part's article.--IDVtalk 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Considering the manga's age, the amount of Japanese coverage included is probably good enough; had this been newer, a more even mix of Japanese and English reception would have been required. However, see the above comment regarding characters. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it was difficult to find much Japanese reception at all - I don't know what Japanese manga coverage was like back in the 1980s, but if it exists it is probably only in print magazines.--IDVtalk 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just resolve the minor issue raised above and this will be a pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the review! I have added the link to the character list, and merged the character section into the plot summary.--IDVtalk 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The issues raised have been resolved, and thus I'm pleased to say that this is a pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to point out that the current chapters listed in each volume of the "2002 re-release" section do not match up to the chapters in the hardcover Viz volumes. There are two three-volume editions of Part 1, a 2002 bunkoban and the 2013 JoJonium. Therefore I think it is safe to assume the current chapters listed match the 2002 release, not the JoJonium. This makes it incorrect to put the English release dates to these volumes. Xfansd (talk)

Oh, I was under the impression that the part 1 JoJonium release was a straight reprint of the 2002 volumes (with new covers). Feel free to fix this, otherwise I'll do it when I have the time.--IDVtalk 15:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There is not enough coverage to justify a separate article for the film. A selective merge would be appropriate. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The reception section of this article predominantly cites western reactions to the 2014 re-releases of Phantom Blood, without considering Japanese sources, the contemporary reactions to its 1987 debut, or its impact on the industry in general.  Further, the cherry-picked reactions chosen to represent the critical opinion of the manga are overwhelmingly negative. I'm not sure whether this is the work of someone with an extremely limited frame of reference for appraising Japanese manga, or someone who has a bone to pick with shōnen manga in general, but this does not give an unbiased look at the reception and continuing legacy of the JoJo saga's debut.
A wider range of reviews with a heavier emphasis on contemporary reactions over western re-evaluations of the work would be desirable here.
2001:2003:F0A1:2700:1DD1:B278:D60A:7153 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who wrote the reception section, and no, I do not have an agenda against shonen, JoJo, manga or whatever - I love comics and am a fan of the series - rather, it was difficult to find many reviews of Phantom Blood at all, and I had to just make use of the ones that I could find. I really do want to include more Japanese reviews, and more contemporary reviews, but I do not have access to Japanese magazines from the 1980s that review manga. If you have access to those, please share so we can fill in the gap.--AlexandraIDV 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith when editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia must be written according to what reliable sources can verify, so a much more likely conclusion would simply be that so far “English language writers only have had access to English language sources”, especially considering there’s no evidence of any malice or purposeful removal on the talk page or page history. These sorts of things happen. I contribute to many 90s rock related album articles myself. It would be better if I could write according to more 1990s print magazines. But I don’t have access to them. So I can only do what I can with what I’ve got. Feel free to try to contribute yourself though, if you have access to different sources though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)