Talk:Mako Mori test

I removed the PROD tag

The current article is well cited (30 at this time) and well articulated and organized. That the subject of a "Mako Mori test" originated with a Tumblr post five years ago is irrelevant as related to GNG today. This article is similar to the Bechdel test article but as I read it there seems to have been a lot of discussion about the new "Mako Mori" model as it compares to it. I initially thought maybe these articles could be merged, but I don't really see that happening. Each is a topic of its own. Yes, I see them referencing each other, but not merging. If someone wants this article deleted, they need to produce a better argument than "Notability is not met, this is a tumblr post". Normal Op (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In any case it's very undercited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.227.195.63 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a test of gender equality

So it's purportedly designed for measuring gender equality. But it clearly doesn't.

"The requirements of the Mako Mori test are that a film or television show has at least one female character and that this character has an independent plot arc and that the character or her arc does not simply exist to support a male character's plot arc."

In order for a test to constitute a measure of gender equality, it would need to have the same requirements for male characters as it does for female characters. Otherwise, a given story might pass as gender-equal but become unequal if the genders of all characters are swapped over, which is of course nonsense. Indeed, the way it's written, a work could pass the test simply by containing only female characters.

Conversely, the requirement of an "independent plot arc" means that a work would fail the test if the story is one of a male-female pair working together to achieve a common goal, no matter how equally divided their parts are. In this scenario, the story is neither male-dominated nor female-dominated, yet it fails this test purely on the basis that the characters have a common plot arc and not independent plot arcs.

As such, I can't believe there's any truth in the claim that it's designed to measure gender equality, nor even that it can be used to measure gender equality as the lead sentence goes on to say. The sources cited in the lead don't seem to make this claim as I look. Rather, it seems to me that the Mako Mori test is designed specifically as a measure (if you can call it that) of the representation of girls/women.

Furthermore, I see that the Criticism section (why is it within the Pacific Rim section?) criticises the test in relation to two Disney films. But it only briefly touches on the argument that the test doesn't test gender equality. Considering the combination of factors, it appears that the claim it does is an error that originated here. I'll amend the lead sentence.

This brings us to the question: What tests of gender equality in works of fiction are there then? None of the links in the Other measures of gender representation section seem to be of this nature.... — Smjg (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Original research/lack of citations in Criticism:Disney section

None of the sources cited in the Disney section mention the test. It's also therefore not criticism of the test and doesn't seem relevant, it's just use of test. I'm going to delete everything following the first paragraph for this reason. --Professionalmartian (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Drmies could you explain your revert in more detail? I still feel like the majority of that section does not belong in the article due to lack of relevance. IMO the majority of the article has relevance/notability problems - none of the sources demonstrate usage of the test for non-Pacific Rim media. --Professionalmartian (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You said "lack of relevant citations", and that clearly was not accurate. One of the sources is Brocklebank, Lisa (2000). "Disney's "Mulan"—the "True" Deconstructed Heroine?". Marvels & Tales. 14 (2): 268–283.. Now, that citation was very poorly done and totally incomplete, but it's from a peer-reviewed journal and seems to be on topic. Not having read the article yet I can't say whether the content is fairly represented etc., but your edit summary was just insufficient. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My suspicion was correct: it was done as some education assignment, and that one paragraph, now removed, showed all the hallmarks of it--verbosity, improper citations, but most of all SYNTH: the two sources didn't discuss the test. So, again, if you're asking why I removed it, the answer is that your edit summary was not accurate, and I could not tell from it that you had actually studied these sources. It may well be that this entire article needs to be scrapped, but it would have to be done carefully. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Would adding the notability template be reasonable? By my count fewer than half of the sources are about or mention the Mako Mori test, and none show that it has widespread usage or that it is actually of comparative notability to the Bechdel test. I think it might merely be a niche fandom idea that didn't catch on, and the content of the article seems to exaggerate it's importance by implication. I think the article can be improved by removing some of the existing content, but I am not confident that what would be left would be worthwhile. --Professionalmartian (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• There are six sources that mention/discuss the test. One of those is in a book by a university press, and another is from Slate. The Daily Dot and the Vancouver blog are really not worth mentioning; I don't know about The Phoenix Papers (see my edit summary). But I think you will find that this will not be deleted when you take it to AfD. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)