Jump to content

Talk:Castle in the Sky/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily take this one! I'm quite familiar with the subject, having spent considerable time editing Hayao Miyazaki, so I'm keen to find out more. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance, Rhain; I'm looking forward to your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

[edit]
  • Laputa turns out to harbor → Laputa harbors
 Question: I wrote in this phrase to allude to the characters' discovery of Laputa's weapons system, which they were not aware of before arriving there. I'll remove it if you insist, but would you reconsider? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I appreciate your explanation; it appeared a little verbose initially, but I agree with your reasoning. ☔
  • incredibly dangerous → dangerous
 Done —TS
  • Remove in order to
 Done —TS
  • Consider removing Miyazaki's 2005 quote; it's up to you, but I don't consider it notable enough for the lead
 Done —TS
  • Similarly, consider paraphrasing the second quote about children
 Not done; I think this one is a better fit for the lead. —TS
  • Either remove the spaces around the em dashes or swap them with en dashes per MOS:DASH
 All replaced —TS
  • $157 million → {{USD|157 million}}
 Already done —TS
  • Remove upon its release
 Done —TS
  • Consider removing the names of awards and summarising instead
 Done —TS
  • I think the quotes (and ref) for "cult status" could be removed as it's sufficiently sourced in the article, but I understand the caution and leave it to you
 Not done. Yeah, I think it could be viewed as an extraordinary statement, especially in the English-speaking world, where the film is possibly not as well-known as in Japan. —TS
I respect that—I guess I forget that it's not as well-known as it deserves to be. ☔
  • I don't think the Twitter records are notable enough for the lead
 Removed —TS

Plot summary

[edit]
Thanks! I squeezed that plot until I could squeeze it no longer, lol —TS
  • Dashes need changing in the first and last paragraphs per above

Voice cast

[edit]
  • The image caption (particularly Hamill's sentence) needs a reference
 Done —TS
  • Hamill has received → Hamill received
 Done —TS
 Done. Thanks for your help with cleaning up the table formatting as well! —TS

Development

[edit]
Beginnings of Studio Ghibli
  • Add a comma after previous film
 Done —TS
  • "a pleasure to watch." → a "pleasure" to watch.
 Done —TS
  • Italicise Blue Mountains
 Done —TS
  • been born." → been born". per MOS:LQ
 Not done; the quote is of an entire sentence, and complies with this guideline with the period inside quotation marks. —TS
  • Consider mentioning that Miyazaki thought of the idea in elementary school, as Suzuki mentions in Stimson 2014
 Done —TS
  • Consider mentioning early proposed titles for the film too, like Young Pazu and the Mystery of the Levitation Crystal and Prisoner of the Castle in the Sky, per Miyazaki 1996, p. 252
I'm not sure where this information would easily fit in, and I only brought up the discarded name "Blue Mountains" because it was relevant to the discussion of The Story of Yanagawa's Canals. In any case, Starting Point is a primary source, and I don't remember any secondary sources mentioning these. I'd prefer to leave them out per WP:WEIGHT. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough; they're not especially important, just something I came across while verifying other refs. ☔
 Done —TS
Ah yes, I'd forgotten the name of the aircraft when I was writing this section. I just went ahead and put it into the prose to avoid a WP:EASTEREGG situation. Do you recall which source mentions this? I'll cite it in the article if possible. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good call! The fact is mentioned in the lead of the Caproni Ca.309 article, with a reference to boot. ☔
 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trips to Wales
  • Image caption needs a reference
 Done —TS
  • the beginning stages → early stages
 Done —TS
  • way of life, and the hard-working" — remove comma
 Done —TS
  • As animation scholar Helen McCarthy writes, → Animation scholar Helen McCarthy wrote,
 Done —TS
Production
  • First sentence feels out of place here
Agreed,  removed —TS
  • Dashes need changing in the first paragraph per above
  • the film also use a combination → the film use a combination
 Done —TS
  • Miyazaki states → Miyazaki stated
 Done —TS
  • $8 million → {{USD|8 million}}
 Question: All of the currency figures in this article use templates as far as I know; am I missing something here? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised I didn't notice that! In that case, the parameter |long=no should be removed from each of the templates to clarify the currency in question. ☔
Fair enough.  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really love to see more information about the core production of the film, but I understand that is unlikely, especially considering when, where, and by whom it was made
Yeah, I'm also a little unsatisfied with the content of this section. Unfortunately, no source I could find described the film's production in any more detail than this. —TS

Themes

[edit]
The roles of nature and technology
  • Critics also note → Critics note
 Done —TS
  • the castle, as while Laputa → the castle; while Laputa
 Done —TS
  • and Cavallaro, that → and Cavallaro that
 Done —TS
  • Capitalisation does not need to be precisely maintained per MOS:CONFORM, but it's fine either way so I'll leave this up to you
    • that "We are not → that "we are not (or that "[w]e are not)
    • argues that "This is not" → argues that "this is not (or argues that "[t]his is not)
    • conclude that "Technology → conclude that "technology (or conclude that "[t]echnology)
    • There are more examples elsewhere in the article, but I won't exhaustively list them all
I'll do another pass of the article and change them to lowercase without square brackets. —TS
 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • by default, and only → by default and only
 Done —TS
Innocence of children
  • While relevant, I'm not sure that the sentence about Future Boy Conan is especially important in this setting
I find the quote relevant, as you said, and a fun little quirk from the Starting Point interviews. I feel like it's also provides insight into Miyazaki's thoughts when writing young characters. Let me know if you would still like it removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; it's pretty harmless—and you're right, it gives extra context to his thoughts. ☔

Style

[edit]
  • Image caption needs a reference
 Done and slightly rephrased. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • VanderMeer and Chambers might need introducing, especially since the phrasing makes them seem like characters in the film alongside Pazu
Whoops, I had accidentally introduced them in the Legacy section and not here.  Done —TS
I figured this was the case! ☔
  • Cavallaro also writes → Cavallaro writes
 Done —TS
  • a view has since been replaced → a view that has since been replaced
 Done —TS

Release

[edit]
See my question about the currency templates above. —TS
  • home video and soundtrack → home video, and soundtrack
Love to see that serial comma!  Done —TS
  • eighth best-selling → eighth-best-selling, I think
I'm also unsure, but it seems right to me, looking at it. I couldn't find anything about ordinal numbers in MOS:HYPHEN.  Done —TS
  • $6.2 million → {{USD|6.2 million}}
As above. —TS
English dubs
  • then-brand-new → then-new
 Done —TS
  • this dub also briefly aired → this dub briefly aired
 Done —TS
 Done —TS
  • Kiki and → Kiki's Delivery Service and
 Sure —TS
  • Change the dashes per above (parentheses may also work)
  • Clarify when the film was added to Netflix (and perhaps that it wasn't/isn't available in the U.S.)
 Done. While the restriction of Ghibli films in North America and Japan is annoying, it might be straying too far from the focus of this article to mention it. —TS
I think you're right—Japan might be worth mentioning, but ultimately the specific regions of digital distribution of a then-34-year-old film isn't particularly important. ☔

Music

[edit]
 Done —TS
 Done —TS
  • Miyazaki himself has approved of Hisaishi's reworking — unless I'm missing something, I don't think this is really mentioned in the source; perhaps consider mentioning what Miyazaki said to Hisaishi instead
 Removed. I think I cited the wrong source here, but I couldn't figure out which other source it's supposed to be. —TS
I think I found it—it was probably meant to be this source, which has a very similar name. If you decide to restore the original sentence with this source, I would add something like According to Hisaishi, for clarity. Interestingly, Hisaishi's account is apparently somewhat contradicted by Steve Alpert in his book, and he gave more information on Reddit, but I'm not sure if any of that is worth including. I'll leave it to you. ☔
  • Remove periods from the two "Notes" in the table
 Done —TS

Reception

[edit]
Critical responses
  • Critical responses → Critical response or Critical reception per MOS:FILMCRITICS
 Done —TS
 Done —TS
  • the Japanese magazine Animage → Animage
 Done —TS
  • Ranking 44th is impressive, but without any context it feels like a random listicle mention — did the magazine say anything specific about the film?
I don't know whether any commentary was provided along with the list, as the information is secondhand coming from ANN. Willing to remove this if it feels a little out-of-context. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "100 Best Anime Productions of All Time" — this isn't mentioned in the source; is it the original name of the list?
Not sure where this came from.  Rephrased —TS
  • Combine the last two sentences of the first paragraph, probably with and
 Done —TS
  • I understand the intention of the second and third paragraphs' opening sentences, but they read a little awkwardly
    • Consider dropping the film was reviewed by news publications there and combining the first two sentences
       Done —TS
    • Considering dropping the first sentence of the third paragraph, and changing about Disney's dub → about Disney's 2003 dub
       Done —TS
  • AV Club → The A.V. Club
 Done —TS
  • I'd really like to see more information from reviews—did they say anything specific about the characters, story, art style? It would be great to see a paragraph for each of these, as described at WP:CRS. At present, it reads like a collection of quotes summarising each review
 Rewritten —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Audience responses
  • Audience responses → Audience response or Audience reception per MOS:FILMAUDIENCE
 Done —TS
 Done —TS
  • Laputa was rated the third-best → the film was rated the third-best
 Done —TS
Accolades
  • I think this information would be better summarised in prose instead of a table
In progress —TS
@Rhain: Coming back to this a little later I'm not sure that prose would be any better than a list here. All of the sources in this section merely mention which award the film received, without any additional commentary or further information. Converting this into prose would just boil down to finding a half-dozen different ways of writing "The film received X award in 1986." —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough; I personally prefer to avoid sections that only consist of a table, but I respect that you want to avoid repetition. ☔
 Question: Is it normal to link to lists of a director's awards in the Accolades section of one of their films? It seems a bit out-of-place to me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, this needn't be included, especially since there are more accolades listed here than on the Miyazaki list. ☔

Legacy

[edit]
  • The image caption needs a period and a reference
 Question: The caption for Lasseter is discussed in more detail lower down in the section. Do we still need a citation? Added the period. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, image captions require referencing per WP:WHYCITE. You can just use the same reference as prose, though. ☔
 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —TS
  • Laputa is considered a "classic" work either needs more references or the names of the book authors
Could you clarify what you mean by this? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have specified. Either the sentence should clarify who considers the film a "classic", or it should have additional references to support the claim. One reference isn't really enough for it to be "considered" a classic unless that reference is named in prose. ☔
 Done and slightly rephrased. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences about Ghost in the Shell and Your Name directors could be merged
Ah, it's a shame to break up the perfect chronological order, but it makes sense to combine those two.  Done —TS
  • Jeff VanderMeer and SJ Chambers, authors of The Steampunk Bible, → The Steampunk Bible authors Jeff VanderMeer and SJ Chambers
Moved their introduction further up the article, so this is redundant. —TS
  • has often cited Miyazaki → often cited Miyazaki
 Done —TS
 Question: Is this necessary considering there's already a link to the article for the film? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful considering the protagonist is being discussed specifically. I'd recommend piping the link as the protagonist. ☔
 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  • Clarify who Macek was, in relation to Streamline
 Done —TS
  • Macek has stated → Macek stated
 Done —TS
  • Italicise Laputa: The Flying Island
 Done —TS
  • Remove the last sentence; connecting that incident to this feels like WP:SYNTH, and infamous feels out-of-place and unsourced
Agreed,  done —TS

References

[edit]
Good catch! I meant to cite The Art of Laputa (Miyazaki 2016).  Fixed —TS
  • Instead of separating sources with semicolons (e.g., ref 31, 33, 41), I would recommend splitting them into separate references instead
The semicolons are just how the {{sfnm}} template renders. I actually intentionally bundled these citations as they were cramping the text in places — I'm not a huge fan of seeing three citation superscripts in a row. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to keep these the way they are. —TS
Of course; there's nothing wrong with the current method, so I'm fine with it. ☔
  • Remove Hisaishi, Joe, cited in from ref 77, and Oshii, Mamoru, cited in from ref 98
I was following WP:SAYWHERE with these. Willing to remove them if you still think they're redundant. —TS
I think they're a little redundant since the original Hisaishi and Oshii sources aren't cited further below. The way it is done elsewhere (refs 1, 36, 39, 48, etc.) is great, as both sources are linked/cited. ☔
 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 96 appears to mention the wrong page (182) — I think it should be 190
I don't actually have the source with me at the moment, but I trust you've got it covered.  Fixed —TS
For reference, I looked at the Google Books version, which is linked in the article. ☔
  • For references without a date (e.g., refs 61, 62, 65, 87, 88, 92, 94), it's best to omit the year entirely, rather than naming the current year
You can manually override this using {{harvid}}—instead of |ref={{harvid|Rotten Tomatoes|2023}}, you could use |ref={{harvid|Rotten Tomatoes}}. You can see this in action on the last reference at Hayao Miyazaki. ☔
Good to know! This solution is never mentioned in the documentation, so that's what had me confused. But if it works, it works.  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twitter 2013 → Twitter Engineering 2013
 Done —TS
 Done —TS
 Done —TS
  • I've seen recent FACs mention that all ref titles should conform to the same case style (title- or sentence-case) per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, but that's more for FAC than GAN (and I've never done it before) so it's entirely up to you—just a heads-up in case you take this to FAC
I will certainly keep it in mind, but this seems like a bit more busywork than I'm feeling up to today XD —TS

Images

[edit]

Result

[edit]

I've wanted to write articles about film for some time, and it's articles like this that make me want to do so. What a fantastic read! The "Themes" section is a particular highlight. Upon reflection, I can see the number of comments above may be disheartening or daunting, but I assure you they're almost all nitpicky and outside GA scope—most are personal suggestions that you're welcome to disagree with, and anything written like this is purely a personal suggestion that can be safely ignored without impacting the review. I like when reviewers are thorough so I try to do the same, but I apologise if it's excessive.

This is really great work and you should be proud of it. I'm putting it on hold for now, but it's barely a hop, skip, and a jump to earning GA! Please feel free to voice any questions or concerns below (or above). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: Thank you very much for an excellent GA review — it is very thorough, very attentive to detail, and beautifully formatted to boot! Please don't apologize for the depth of your comments, it only goes to show the commitment you have to a high standard of content on this website; keep it up. I appreciate your openness to considering my comments, especially the edit summary on one of your replies — it all contributes to a really productive collaboration on this article. What a nice experience for my very first GAN! I'm still working through your comments and should have them all addressed by tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for all your hard work, TechnoSquirrel69! I'm glad you appreciate my thoroughness. You seem to have addressed most of my notes above; I only have a few more, mostly minor:
  • The image caption in § Themes needs referencing
 Done —TS
  • In § Accolades, Award (table header) → Award / Publication (or Award / publication), or something similar
 Done —TS
  • Is there a particular reason the Result column is blank for the last two awards?
Those two are a little different from the others as they aren't a category at an awards event, but simply some kind of recognition from an organization. I thought it would be a little weird to report the film "winning" a recommendation from a children's welfare committee. —TS
That seems logical. Personally, I would either add {{Won}} to the table or move those two awards to prose, but it's fine either way. ☔
I'm working on a partial rewrite of the section in my sandbox; I'll try to wrap it up today. —TS
As usual, please feel free to respond above or below. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhain: Replied in line above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! This looks great; § Critical response is structured really well. I would note that aggregator scores are typically placed at the top of the section, but this film was released before those websites existed so their current placement is logical too.
That's it from me! As I said before, this article was basically in GA shape before I started, so I appreciate your patience and hard work in addressing all of my nitpicking. I'll do some minor housekeeping on my way out, but this is all yours: .
Congratulations, you should be proud of your work! (And don't forget that the article will be eligible for DYK for the next seven days, if you're interested.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Castle_in_the_Sky/GA1&oldid=1175431716"