Talk:Princess Mononoke/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like fun to review! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get started on this later today! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

General notes[edit]

I'm a little concerned about some of the sources. For example, I'm uncertain about movie-vault.com. I see where movievault.com is used, but movie-vault.com seems to be less frequently used and the site looks kind of sketchy. It is used in places like this, which is good, but it doesn't seem like the strongest source at first glance. (I'm more looking for some reassurance of its reliability.)

The Geocities site, I think it would be better to cite the specific news sources that are being used to back up the claims. The URL for the Geocities site can be used, but it would be more accurate to list the specifics for the given newspaper/source that's citing the claim. With loca.ash.jp, it looks like they have administrators but do generally accept user submissions via forums and the like.

One of the links is a self-published blog, Anime Dub Reviews. I do see that it's used on about 4 other articles but I can't really find a lot of things via a general Google search to show where it's really widely seen as a reliable source, as it looked to only be used once by an academic source. It's another one where there would likely be a better source out there for this.

One of the sources is IMDb - this shouldn't be used as a source. Since it looks to be backing up the Annie Award, it would be fine to re-use the Annie website to back up that claim.

The other sources look to be fine. I would just change up the sources I mentioned here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to review the sources. I made some edits to Ashitaka to be more exact to the source. It's implied that Miyazaki didn't want him to be a typical hero but it's not outright said per se. It looks like this is something that's common for this source - there are things that are implied, but not actually stated in the source. This feels too much like original research for my comfort. If this is in another source, then definitely let me know. I am going to try to mark things as I go by. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)
The information about the writer's block and On Your Mark, is that in the McCarthy pr the documentary source? It looks like it's sourced to the Ghibli source, which doesn't actually mention anything about writer's block. I don't have access to either source to be able to verify this. I also replaced the blog source with one from Ain't It Cool News. AICN has gone downhill since its heyday, but back in the 90s it was seen as a pretty reliable source for news and information. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

citations[edit]

I would vote to pass it but there is major spots who need citations fixes.

There is sentence that speculates that it got a limited release it the US because of gift that the distributors got from the director. If it can't proven it must be deleted or moved to the talk page.

I have worked on a page where there is a lot of speculation on the subject, but none of it was degrading way nor was it peacocking. For him I created the topic Unverified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Lee#Unverified_Information

If any of the un-cited stuff remains just toss in section like that and retrieve it later.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! I'm glad that it wasn't just myself that had concerns over the citations. My problem with the section though, is that this content is in enough of the article that I think it would be detrimental to remove it. I think offhand that it would be better to have the nominator either fix this and renominate later (if they think it will take them some time) or just close it and leave it as is, for another person to fix the sourcing. 17:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@QuestFour: ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query[edit]

ReaderofthePack, QuestFour, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can tell, QuestFour hasn't edited the article since the day it was nominated, and hasn't responded here at all, though plenty of edits have been made elsewhere on Wikipedia. If no response is forthcoming in the next seven days, perhaps the nomination should be closed; it can't be held open indefinitely. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlueMoonset, please see here. Thank you. QuestFour (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuestFour, thanks for getting back to me. It sounds like you didn't understand the GA nomination process, and weren't really ready to handle what your responsibilities were here. The GA nomination instructions are pretty clear about this:

Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process; therefore, the review will require your involvement as nominator. Before nominating an article, ensure that you will be able to respond to these comments in a timely manner.

Your request to WikiProject Anime and manga hasn't been answered after three weeks, so I think we have to assume no one from there is willing to do the work needed on this nomination. Under the circumstances, I would recommend that ReaderofthePack close this nomination right away. Please don't make another nomination here until you feel ready to do your part in the process. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand and I apologize for not reading the GA instructions. Thank you for clarifying. QuestFour (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it as failing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]