Talk:Naruto Uzumaki

Updated the Plot

Now that Naruto's beaten the Nine-Tailed Fox, I've updated the article to summarize the basic events of chapters 490-499. If anyone thinks what I've added can be improved upon, please do so. 75.157.125.234 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Naruto controlling the Fox is already in the abilities section, so it does not need to be in the plot overview.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what about his mom being the Fox's prior host, the one who destroyed Konoha and was killed by Minato? She doesn't have a section on the character page, so where should we add that? 75.157.120.15 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not for this section. May be more notable for Fox's section.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fox doesn't have much of a section, and what's there leaves little room for additions. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a format is outdated and leaves a lot of accuracy to be desired. If someone reads the article as is-they'll think Jiraiya died before Naruto completed his Futon: Rasenshuriken and that Naruto defeated Pain before defeating Kakuzu. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the article tells in that such things happen in some order? Besides, you appear to find current events in the manga more important than previous ones, and that's no reason to change images.Tintor2 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Given its a PLOT OVERVIEW, and we basically have the part 1 plot in order, yes, we have to have the Part 2 part in order. Otherwise, it's confusing. And yes, current events in the manga sometimes retcon things. We have to keep this article up to date and make things not confusing to the readers. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the Sasuke Uchiha article's plot overview is in order, why not have Naruto's in order? Why leave Naruto's as a confusing mess that screws up events?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid making changes without consensus. I rearranged the plot overview section to remove the ability parts which are misleading. References have to be formatted with cite book to be more specific rather than just giving the chapters. The Part II image is blank and white making it less informative than the Part I, which also shows his Rasengan which is also discussed in the article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How will we make a 'consensus'? There are only TWO of us here discussing this. And how are the 'ability parts' misleading when I put them down? How is citing just the volume more specific than the actual chapter itself? And how is the Part II image less informative than the outdated Part I one? Just because Naruto is using a Rasengan in it? It doesn't reflect current data. Tintor, stop sticking with the outdated and confusing parts of the article please.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The abilities parts are for the section from the same name. Current is important for real world information, not fictional. Giving unformatted refs for an article is not encyclopedic as read will have no idea where is such chapter from, and will only work in a wikia.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Voice Actresses

How come in the entire article there is no mention of who voices Naruto himself in both the Japanese and English dubs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.130.136 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean about the infobox, it was part of vandalism. There are mentions of Maile Flanagan and Junko Takeuchi in the article but not many.Tintor2 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I have made some corrections but someone better than me should go over it "with a fine toothed comb" looking for non sequiturs and any other errors. – Allen4names 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"... causing it to resemble it as time goes on"??? ambiguous it ".. he is able to maintain his human form while using it." No clear mention that he changes forms from human to fox or vice versa. Confusing "... leaving Naruto without a family" what about his mother???? Confused Konoha/Konohagakure: stick to one spelling "... more chakra in the form of tails appears" Confused??? "... the soul of his mother Kushina Uzumaki that has been within the seal." Shouldn't the mother be named when birth is mentioned? The article does not say what Part II is, where referred first time in " Naruto become a central conflict in Part II" No mention that they are manga. "...utterly unquestionable whether or not" questionable??? "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version ..." From the beginning of the series/throughout the series?? "She noted difficulties in voicing the character for the first [time] after " Missing word "Takeuchi met [with] hardships" missing word and extra s
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Ref 39 is dead. Replace
	2c. it contains no original research.	added
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is no clear boundary where Part I ends and Part II starts in Appearances. What about the anime appearances? Are they covered too? Not clear. "Description" is too abstract. May be you have a full-fledged section on "appearance". Describe his hair, costume (blue patches etc.), the head band (symbol on it), eye colour, shoes etc. How it changes from Part I to II, anime, video games. Naruto seems to use multiple fighting techniques. A detailed section on it is needed. [1] "various stages of the demon fox's manifestation" : explain Naruto's non-human manifestations See Barbara Gordon for a good layout. Reorganize sections as "Appearance" (physical appearance), "Personality", "Life", "Abilities and fighting techniques", "Conception", "Reception".
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Infobox image needs a caption stating stating if it is from Part I or II. Add description on image page in fair use rationale.
	7. Overall assessment.	The articles needs a through copyedit and more clarity in the life summary. Also give more context to explain jargon like chakra. Include more manga as well as anime, video games related information, as suggested in 3a.

This is not a fansite. There's no need to add section of about all his abilties or personality traits, or it will be wp:fancruft. Part II is actually from the same manga, while anime appearances are actually the same as the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond (character), FA Batman also have these sections. Besides a copyedit, the article also needs to clarify the sources: Part I, Part II in the article text: are you referring manga/anime etc. You are free to ask for reassessment. All the best. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The series' primary media is the manga, that's why all sources are from the manga volumes, while the anime adapts them.

So you say that adding in-universe information will make the article better? I still don't see how would adding details like "Naruto makes all his clones launch each other in one attack, or that the Rasengan can only be made with Naruto's clones" be important to the general reader. If I were to follow other stuff, how GAs Samus Aran, Lara Croft and Cloud Strife avoid using these types of subsections. You also pointed few sentences that I was going to try fixing, but did the nomination automatically fail due to the lack of in-universe sections?Tintor2 (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The sections are not the only reason of a fail. The language and inadequate clarity of jargon like Part II, chakra is also a major reason of fail. Thus, it needed a rewrite in this aspect too. If you think that the article can be a GA as it is. Please approach GA reassessment. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That was what I was going to do as you noted in the issues, but you still claim that the article needs to follow Wikia standards with new sections, which I fail understand why having wp:plot and wp:fancruft in mind.Tintor2 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose

All the points in section 1a have been addressed, except for the following (quotes taken from this version):

• "Kishimoto is glad that his character has blond hair and blue eyes; it has become so common worldwide ever since Naruto's debut that it is utterly unquestionable whether or not the main protagonist is purely Japanese due to his appearance, therefore Naruto, along with the immense popularity it has gained, comes naturally to the readers and international audiences with blond hair and blue eyes."

I would have tried to re-cast the sentence, but I wasn't sure what it was getting at. Something to do with cross-cultural appeal, or diversity? Or merely that it's too late now to give Naruto brown eyes and black hair, even if Kishimoto wanted to? Anyway, the first clause is not cited—I was tempted to just delete the whole thing.

He refers to Naruto's popularity across international readers and the questioning whether or not he was Japanese considering his hair and eyes.

• "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version ..." From the beginning of the series/throughout the series??

Replaced with "Throughout the beginning of the English dub version".

Someone who has seen the series will have to address this.

• The article does not say what Part II is, where referred first time in " Naruto become a central conflict in Part II" No mention that they are manga.

I'm with Redtigerxyz on this. I had to infer the distinction between Part I and Part II based on context clues. I think this should be spelled out unambiguously in the lead, along with what TV shows and movies he has appeared in, and how they are related to each other. Just a couple sentences would really clear things up, but I think someone with more Naruto knowledge should do it.

Added to the lead.

It seems reasonably clear and concise to me, but I've read the article a bunch of times now. Someone else may want to give it a quick speed read just to make sure I'm not imagining it. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes and copyedits.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Will review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(beginning)

lede

• "This has also occurred within the start of Part II, the storyline's part which starts two-and-a-half years after the conclusion of the original series Part I." - this is clumsy wording. Also, perhaps you should explain that there are two parts, etc.

Reworded to incorporate it within the previous sentences.

• "Several anime and manga publications have expressed acclaim and criticism of Naruto's character." - have expressed mixed views?

Reworded.

Description

• "Naruto wants people's attention as a result of the way villagers have set him apart" - Because the villagers have set him apart, Naruto seeks the attention of others?

Reworded.

• "While becoming a ninja" - so he doesn't start out as one? Should this be stated in the lede, as there it sounds like he has always been one?

Reworded in the lead.

Appearance

• "Team 7" - is there significance to this?

It's Naruto's primary group, but it's never mentioned again in the section, so removed.

• "He later learns the Rasengan, a concentrated orb of spiraling chakra capable of grinding whatever it touches." - could this be explained better? He learns to use ... a concentrated orb ...?

Reworded.

• "discovering that the Fourth Hokage was actually his father." - is actuall his father?

Yes, removed the actual.

• "This portrayal of Naruto later appeared as a secret character in the game " - later appears?

Reworded.

Creation and conception

• "The orange in his costume makes Naruto "pop" and blues are often used" - and blue is often used? Or do you mean one orange and more than one blue?

Reworded.

• "Kishimoto is glad that his character has blond hair and blue eyes, something rarely seen in Japanese." - why is this in the present tense? - did he say this somewhere?

Reworded.

• There is an alternation between present and past tense that is confusing.

Fixed.

Comment

• I will add more. Altogether I think it's clearly written. So far I've made a few edits which you are free to change.[2]

Voice actors

• "as she had to record the first episode after the time skip only one week after voicing the character from before the time skip." - this is the time between the parts referred to in the lede?

Reworded.

Reception

• I'm noticing the alternation between using past and present tense continues in this section. You need to be consistent. I think only the "in-universe" stuff should be in the present tense, unless there is a compelling reason to put other information in the present tense.

Reworded.

• "In every official Weekly Shōnen Jump popularity poll of the series, Naruto ranks in the top five characters and has been in first place twice." - should add time frame, like "as of the beginning of 2012, ... been in first place twice."

Reworded.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

• I have made further copy edits. Please check for accuracy.[3]
• "a concentrated orb of chakra" - sorry, but I don't get this. (should I take it on faith?)

Reworded

• "Because Naruto is associated with spirals" - is this because of chakras?
  • Reworded. It's because of several things such as his headband which looks like spiral, his name, the ramen, etc.
• "on the cellular level" - is that meant literally?
  • It is. Would it make it simpler to state it cuts?
• "He sealed the Fox so Naruto could use it against Tobi" - could this be clearer?

Reworded,

• use of Amazon.com - are you using that just to prove the object exists? (as otherwise, it's not a relaible source).

Replaced two and removed two with official website.

• still a problem with verb tense - e.g. in "Reception", the comments of critics should be in the past tense - I went through and tried to check, but please be conscious of tense.

MathewTownsend (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(continuing}

• I have made a few more edits for you to check.[4]

Looks pretty good.

• "To prepare himself, he takes full control of the Fox's powers, discovering that the Fourth Hokage was his father. He sealed the Fox so Naruto could use its power to defeat Tobi, Pain's superior who was responsible for the Fox's attack to Konohagakure." - I don't understand about the seal and "sealed the Fox". Or the Fourth Hokage.

Reworded. The seal is the Fourth Hokage made to place the Fox inside Naruto also mentioned in the first sentence of "In Naruto".

• "Therefore Naruto, along with the immense popularity it has gained, comes naturally to the readers and international audiences with blond hair and blue eyes. Moreover, the editor of the American magazine Shonen Jump implied that these traits may have made the characters more appealing to Western audiences." - not sure what "it has gained" refers to - what is "it"? Also, why the italics? Can't you just leave that part out, as the editor's statement says the same thing.

Removed the italics. Reworded it as it meant the series.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a few more things

• "simple and stupid" - this quote needs to be given a source

Added refs.

• there are some sources that are not accessible, except by subscription and should be labeled as such. e.g. the source for the Washington Times critic goes to [5]

Replaced the Washington Times site with a more accessible one.

• Thank you for your cooperation in being so responsive to my points!

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! Good job! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback: You could put more images.

83.42.224.121 posted this comment on 3 May 2013 (view all feedback).

You could put more images.

Any thoughts?

Nonfree images are difficult to list unless they are prominent in the article and have a small resolution.Tintor2 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Importance scale evaluation.

I noticed that Mika1h raised the importance rating of this article to mid on the bases that the character is from a series rated as High-important.[6] However, the criteria is that the character is a cultural icon outside of the series. And frankly, I'm not seeing much in the reception section as of yet to justify an upgrade in the importance rating. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I was looking at the High-importance criteria, Mid-importance only requires that the character is well known. —Farix (t | c) 20:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)