Talk:The Rose of Versailles

Special manga

Here there are the last chapters of special manga, but they're in French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.22.141 (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this. Link20XX (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Morgan695: I have completed my initial review. Just needs a few things before it can be promoted:

Checklist

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Sourcing:

• Comic Natalie is published by Natasha, Inc, so that should be added to those references as the publisher.
  • Done.
• Link to the article for Anime News Network in the references from them where it is not linked.
  • Done.
• References 45 and 47 need an author.
  • Done.
• Reference 59 needs to link to the article on Natalie (website) and needs an access date.
  • Done.

Images:

• The image of François Augustin Regnier de Jarjayes is tagged with a message stating "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."
  • That image seemed to be dubiously sourced, so I swapped it for a new one.

Other:

• This article lacks even some critical reviews. You should get at least 2 or 3 in Reception.
  • Done.

Small question

• How much of this was translated from French? I'm just curious; this won't effect the GA review and you can completely ignore this if you want.
  • Almost entirely. The bulk of the previous article was sourced primarily from fan sites; probably a consequence of the original article being written in the mid-2000s when there were few/no mainstream English-language sources on the series.

Anyway, that is all. Resolve them and I will happily pass the article. Link20XX (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• • @Link20XX: Response above. Morgan695 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Morgan695: Alright. Your changes addressed my few concerns so I am closing this review as Pass. Congratulations and thanks for answering my question! Link20XX (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Riyoko Ikeda

• ... that Riyoko Ikeda (pictured) wrote her manga series The Rose of Versailles as a story about revolution and populist uprising after becoming involved with the Japanese Communist Party in the 1960s? Source: "The Rose of Versailles: Women and Revolution in Girls' Manga and the Socialist Movement in Japan"
  • ALT1:... that the sole copy of an English-language translation of the manga series The Rose of Versailles produced in the 1970s was lost? Source: Anime News Network
  • ALT2:... that Japanese manga artist Riyoko Ikeda (pictured) was awarded the Legion of Honour by the French government for her manga series The Rose of Versailles? Source: "La Rose de Versailles: Marie-Antoinette, une reine martyre mangaïsée"

• Reviewed: Research on Inuit clothing

Improved to Good Article status by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Absolutely fascinating article. The wording of ALT1 doesn't quite make sense, but ALT0 and ALT2 are approved. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 04:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

First to achieve mainstream success?

I would appreciate a source for this claim. There were any number of commercially successfully shōjo manga prior to RoV, going back to at least 1929. Too many to list, though I could try if you like, starting with Katsuji Matsumoto's Poku-chan series. What it sounds like the editor is really trying to say is, "the first shōjo manga to garner a stamp of approval from dudes." It also sounds like something a Japanese Baby Boomer male manga critics would say, because it was the first shōjo manga they themselves took an interest in (and in fact I feel certain I've read/heard such critics say this). RoV was certainly the most commercially successful shōjo manga that had appeared, as evidenced by the fact that the tankobon edition was the first hugely successful tankobon of any genre, and single-handedly led to publishers shifting their focus from selling magazines to selling trade paperbacks. "Critically successful" is meaningless in the 1970s, because there were maybe three manga critics at the time, all men, and they were mostly obscure, read by a handful of university students. Rachel Thorn (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I've revised the relevant sections to better reflect the passage in Shamoon (2012) about the popularity of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Directors in lead section

In this recent edit by PanagiotisZois (talk · contribs), the user added the 2025 anime film's director to the lead section to make it consistent with the live-action film's director. However, it was reverted by Morgan695 (talk · contribs).

That said, which directors should be mentioned in the lead section where appropriate? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the lead should note that Lady Oscar was directed by Jacques Demy because it's specifically notable that the film was created by a director of his stature. The 2025 animated adaptation, on the other hand, is more or less an anonymous big studio project; if anything were to be added, something like produced by MAPPA probably makes more sense. Morgan695 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)