# Talk:The Poe Clan

The ja.wiki article offers some good sourced information about the record-breaking sales of the series, and its influence. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"3 million copies"??? That's a gin-NOR-mous print run, especially for the time. Machine translations of the ja.wiki article and that source read that as 30,000 copies, which is impressive but not dubious claim. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about the extra zero. But for what it's worth, one very recent article says the total sales of all volumes of all editions of the Poe series is 3.5 million.Matt Thorn (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Should I copy the chronology of the Poe Family from the ja wiki? Extremepro (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly not until we get that publication info straightened out. Fourteen initial volumes, but we list nine -- eh? And usually the initial volumes are the tankobon edition, followed by a smaller number of bunkoban volumes, but going from 14 to 3 is a lot more collapsed than anything I've seen. A thought occurs to me: was that 14 a typo for 4, and the nine listed the 4 + 3 + 2 collapsed into one table with continuous numbering? If so, a) numbering MUST be straightened out, preferably by not being in a single table, and b) usually we only tabulate the original editions as the more encyclopedic information. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting complicated: I'm finding multiple statements that it originally was 5 volumes, not 9 (or 14), which is consonant to being compacted down to 3 bunkoban -- but then there's those volumes 6-9 on the publisher's site. OTOH, those 6-9 are not under the Flower Comics imprint -- and they are coming out up to two years after serialization ended. This is not making sense. (Also, there was a 1988 reissue we're not capturing.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
But to answer the question: if we can rework it into a prose summary of the story, sure. Possibly transcribe it here, on the talk page, so we can edit it. Just the timeline on its own, without any context, would be ... confusing. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, a summary of the characters would be in order first. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured this could be useful to anyone who wishes to write a reception section.
Hakutaku: https://hakutaku.us/the-poe-clan-manga-review/
DoomRocket: https://doomrocket.com/required-reading-118-the-poe-clan/
TheOASG: https://www.theoasg.com/reviews/manga/the-poe-clan-volume-1-review/16002
Anime UK News: https://animeuknews.net/2019/11/the-poe-clan-volume-1-review/
Anime News Network: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/the-poe-clan/omnibus-1/.160736
Otaku USA: https://www.otakuusamagazine.com/poe-clan-manga-review/
The Comics Journal: http://www.tcj.com/reviews/the-poe-clan-vol-1/
– KuroMina (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC); updated 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Poe Clan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC) 
Hello! As soon as I saw that you nominated such a classic manga series, I knew I had to review it. Sorry about missing an unreliable source in the last GA review I did for you. I will start shortly. Link20XX (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Morgan695: I have completed my initial review. Great job overall, just a few things before it can be promoted. 


### Checklist
Is it well written?

A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
Lede and infobox:

"teenage vampire, from the 18th to 21st centuries" I don't believe a comma is needed here.4
Revised.
There should be no small text in the Infobox per MOS:SMALL.
Done.
Monthly Flowers is a Josei magazine, so shouldn't both Shojo and Josei be listed as demographics, like in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure?
Done.
Development:

"one-shot" should be spelled with a dash. There are a few occasions in this section it is spelled without one
Done.
"The series resumed publication in January 1975, with eight chapters published in Bessatsu Shōjo Comic and one chapter in Shūkan Shōjo Comic. Chapters were serialized at an irregular pace until the conclusion of the series in June 1976" is not stated on page 76 of their report, unless I missed it.
Corrected.
"Hagio subsequently wrote an additional chapter of Hare no Yume, which was published in the May 2017 issue of Monthly Flowers; both chapters were collected as a hardcover published in July 2017." Unless I missed it, this is not stated in source 21.
Corrected.
Media:

Amazon says the first volume was published in May 1974, not March
Corrected.
Reference 39 appears to redirect to the main page. You may need to get the archive url.
Corrected.
([43][44][45][46][47][48]) is WP:TOOMANYREFS. You may need to WP:CITEBUNDLE them.
Done.
Reception and legacy:

Unless I missed it, the source does not say the series won the Shogakukan manga award, and instead says Golgo 13 won the award with They Were Eleven.
Corrected.
Some more critics' reviews should be added to this section, there are very few currently. There is a list of reviews on the talk page.
Done.
That is all. Address the issues above and I will pass it. Link20XX (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I'll respond to your notes in the next few days. Morgan695 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem, take your time. Link20XX (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Link20XX: Response above. Morgan695 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Morgan695: Yep you addressed all my issues. I am happy to say the result of this review is Pass. Congratulations! Link20XX (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)