GA review 2007-09-13
Content-wise, this article has enough to reach Good article status. What is most needed now is some prose re-writing for readability, plus some fixes to avoid confusion for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Here are my notes for each section, written as I read this article a week ago:
Plot summary
The article is about a television series, but the Plot Summary section seems to be referring to the books, and in this section it is not immediately made clear to the reader if Boogiepop at Dawn is an episode, a series, or a book.
If I understand this correctly, the two books which were not TV series, preceed the TV series which is the subject of this article. Perhaps Plot summary should be broken up into subcategories for Background, detailing the books (and explaining that this is what is being summarized), then TV series for the last paragraph.
Okay I see now this is made clear down in Production. It should also be stated in Plot summary.
Wait, is Boogiepop and Others a prequel, or an earlier chapter? If the latter, this should be taken out of the Plot summary and given its own treatment, perhaps in its own article — prequels are intended to be seen afterward, and viewers are not expected to have seen them first. A brief mention, like "this is elaborated in the prequel, Boogiepop and Others" would be okay, but mostly it's just confusing to have these details introduced here.
Characters
Boogiepop: 2nd sentence has no predicate. "and acts as mechanical as it claims to be" presupposes the reader knows this is claimed. Can it just be said "and acts mechanical", or is important that the character makes this claim?
Kazuko Suema: "... she developed a fascination for criminal and abnormal psychology, and the desire to not let anything occur around her without her knowing." Confusing compound here — change 2nd phrase to "a desire".
Themes
Third paragraph: "Commentary" is orphaned, presumably belongs in the footnote.
This section might be easier to read (for people unfamiliar with the series) if organized a little more invitingly. Perhaps a summarizing intro paragraph, or a few subsections. As each theme gets a sentence or so, I'm not sure which are emphasized in this series, and which are fleeting, or if different episodes have different themes.
Artistic homages
Pink Floyd single of the same name, which itself is a possible allusion to 2001: A Space Odyssey with its themes of evolution and transcendence.
Unless 2001 has some direct reference from or relevance to Boogiepop Phanton, the possible allusion Pink Floyd are making isn't worth mentioning in this article. There's a confusing level of detail in this article, and anything superfluous needs to come out.
Too bad so few of the references are to web pages I can check. Some of these things could use more explanation.
Boogiepop refers to an obscure Prince (artist) inspiration? Is that the name "Spooky Electric" or something else? The Black Album (Prince album) article doesn't clear it up for me. This needs to be clarified (or removed as trivial). There may be too many examples here.
Per WP:MUSTARD, the AC/DC single "Snake Eye" and the Prince song "Poom Poom" should get quotes, not italics. (And the term Poom poom predates Prince musically, dunno the artist. A big hit went all I wanna do is zoom zoom zoom in a poom poom. Are you sure Boogiepop took this from Prince?)
"Mythology" should probably be a subcategory under Artistic homages.
Many of these references (e.g. Gravity's Rainbow) are overexplained; detail not pertaining to the story (or easily digested by the reader) should be excised. When you have to list many loosely-related things, reading is easier if one need not stop repeatedly for explanations — the reader can click thru if they don't know what Gravity's Rainbow is.
If specific details from Gravity's Rainbow are needed for understanding important aspects of Boogiepop Phantom, make it clear. Otherwise the reader just feels burdened by off-topic information.
These paragraphs that are basicly lists of things in prose form should be given some kind of narrative flow — this will never make FA status without it. Until then, a little organizational revision and more paragraph breaks should make it sufficiently readable for GA status.
Releases
Opening with the subject of licensing and distribution deals is just killer boring. I'm sorry to phrase it this way, but either give the reader something inviting here, or find a way to make this business interesting. Is there something unique or important to how Boogiepop was distributed?
Again, broadcast runs into DVD release runs into distribution. Either break this up into paragraphs with transitional phrases, or make sections.
Lots of detail is hard to read. Is all this needed?
Critical reception
Disease does not need to be wikilinked in this context. Again, many facts, not organized. Hard to read.