Talk:Dareka no Manazashi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this one. Should have this to you in a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like to be the bad guy... but I should point that some sources used in the article may not be reliable. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• "is a Japanese anime short film by Makoto Shinkai" - by? Shouldn't it be directed?

Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• "though it also shown alongside Shinkai's film The Garden of Words during its Japanese premier on May 31, 2013" - is this relevant?

It was stressed in the news articles about the film. It was treated as a special opportunity to view two new Shinkai short films back-to-back, and the tendency to show these films together continued with some film festivals. In fact, I had never heard of this short film until someone asked on the talk page for The Garden of Words why this redirected there. I looked into it, learned that this "sister film" was commonly shown with it, and then launched into writing this article. If it's too minor of a point, it can be removed... but see my point below, where you talk about the length of the lead. – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I see, thanks for explaining! I was just wondering if it was meant to be there in the lead, but I'm sure it's fine there nevertheless. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "It was later posted on YouTube from September 2013 to January 2014" - is this essential to include in the lead section? Let alone the first paragraph?

Given that the film is generally not available on DVD/BD in most regions, and that this was considered it's primary method of distribution, I would argue yes. – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, and occasionally YouTube can be accepted as a reliable source given that the publisher is official ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and could summarise the article better. I would recommend an expansion of the second paragraph to mention more on what critics thought about it. Also, the lead should try to mention a small amount of every section, allowing it to act as a "mini article"

I completely agree, and that's how I write my leads. I will add more about the critique shortly, once the RS discussion concludes. If most of those "questionable" sources disappear, then there probably won't be much of a "Reception" section to summarize. I am a little confused by your comments, though. You ask that I include a small amount of information from each section, but above you questioned whether some of the key points from the "Release" section were relevant enough for the lead. If you want more on the plot, I can try to expand it... though I typically condense the story to its most basic elements for the lead... which on a ~7-minute film about a very simple topic leads to what you see here. I do see a few minor points that could be summarized, based on additions from Japanese source materials from my co-author and translator. So aside from a small amount of production information I'm adding, the release info is covered, and reception info will be added if it survives. Anything else? – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again! I think the plot part is fine, and you did a good job on expanding the article as it is. It's an accomplishment to make the most out of a short film as it is. I also agree with you regarding that the plot should be condensed for the basic elements ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Set in the not-too-distant future" - WP:WEASEL words! Can this be reworded to something like just Set in the future or middle 21st century so on?

How about Set in the near future? I've tried that. Anyway, never thought of that as a type of weasel word. Interesting. – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Infobox people need a reference (though personally I don't think it's essential, but the majority of reviewers disagree)

Interesting... Aside from Shinkai, the only person mentioned is Akihisa Matsuura, and that's cited in the body. I also treat the infobox like the lead—it only summarizes info from the article, but if something there is not covered or controversial, then a citation is required. In fact, I see a lot of film articles come to FAC from GAN without citations in the infobox, and most of the time the material in the infobox isn't even mentioned in the body. Anyway, the people who participated in the film will be in the film's credits. Still want them? – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's OK, I'll leave it up to you? I actually don't mind, and I hope people won't think that I'm too 'laid back' but I don't mind if there are citations in the infobox or not. It's just that some reviewers prefer them, but I think it's alright ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "It was originally scheduled to be taken down on January 12, 2014, but remained available until January 21" - why was it taken down? Copyright reasons? And if this has to be in the lead, it didn't mention why it was taken down?

The sources didn't explicitly state it, if I recall. Basically CoMix Wave Films announced that it would be on YouTube for a while, and then took it down. I guess it was considered a limited screening, but nothing came out and said that officially. As for the two dates, the official source made one claim, but another sourced noted that it was still up past that date. – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links

Thanks for checking. I always archive my sources. – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am aware of a question of unreliable references on the talk page. I think the UKAniFest reference is alright, since it's a festival and all, and the instances from the talk page include frikisreconocidos.com, animeemanga.it, otakustudy.com, geekenstein.com, ukanifest.co.uk, and anicom.co.uk appear to be removed. I'm not so well versed in the reliability of film refs compared to VG refs, so I think it's reassuring that these have been removed.

I'm not very well versed myself. As you've seen on the talk page, my questions about refs are rarely answered, and I've learned that if one established person in the related Wikiproject strongly objects, another established person will support and add the ref back. Not only that, but across all entertainment articles, opinions about what's reliable and what's not vary so widely that questioning them rarely leads to article improvement. It's the reason why I prefer to write academic articles about lemurs and rarely bother with entertainment articles. I understand overly strict policies about reliable refs for very popular entertainment items, but for others (like this short film), holding people to a several-year-old list of websites severely limits the coverage. And then there's the topic of Japanese online sources... which sometimes seem to get a free pass on the vetting process (because so few people can translate them) and are considered "required" for consideration for FAC. Like I said, I don't really get it. Anyway, please watch the discussion on the talk page. Hopefully we'll manage to work through the RS issue quickly. – Maky ^« talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

On hold

A solid article and with the right work it could stand a chance of passing. I'll leave this on hold for your for the standard seven days. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you for your detailed responses! I replied to most of them above and pretty much agreed with your input. Put simply, this article now meets the GA criteria. The references all check out, it is broad, comprehensive and overall well written. All the key factors of the GA criteria match, so I'll be happy to promote this ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)