Jump to content

Talk:Looking for Magical Doremi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLooking for Magical Doremi has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 2, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the film poster for Looking for Magical Doremi appeared in an episode of Healin' Good Pretty Cure to promote the film?

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Eddie891 (talk15:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the film poster for Looking for Magical Doremi appeared in an episode of Healin' Good Pretty Cure to promote the film? Source: Oricon (link): "第16話に登場したポスターには、おジャ魔女メンバーのどれみ、はづき、あいこ、おんぷ、ももこと、『魔女見習いをさがして』のソラ、ミレ、レイカの計8人が描かれていた。[The poster in episode 16 contains the 8 characters that consist of Ojamajo members Doremi, Hazuki, Aiko, Onpu, and Momoko, as well as Sora, Mire, and Reika from Looking for Magical Doremi]."
    • ALT1:... that the film Looking for Magical Doremi depicts real-life locations of where Ojamajo Doremi is based? Source: Anime News Network (link): "They go on trips together across Japan, doubling down on some serious anime tourism by visiting a ton of different places seen in the various seasons of Magical DoReMi."
    • ALT2:... the dandelions seen in Looking for Magical Doremi was a reference to the production staff's previous work, Yume no Crayon Oukoku? Source: Natalie (link): "観客からのQ&Aコーナーでは、「どれみ」と「魔女見習い」に共通する「タンポポの綿毛」というモチーフについて質問が。すると佐藤監督は「これは『夢のクレヨン王国』までさかのぼる話なんですが、『クレヨン王国』は綿毛がふわっと飛んでいく場面で終わるんです。[In the Q & A corner from the audience, there was a question about the "dandelion fluff" commonly seen in [Ojamajo] Doremi and Looking for Magical Doremi, to which director [Junichi] Sato said, "This goes all the way back to Yume no Crayon Oukoku, where Yume no Crayon Oukoku ended with a scene were a fluff flutters and flies [to the sky]."]."
  • I have decided not to review this nomination formally, but I have a couple of comments. 1. Can a flesh-and-blood actor "star" in an anime? 2. I think ALT1 is the most interesting, but it doesn't look grammatically correct to me ("Locations where the anime is based on"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is long enough and new enough. I assume good faith on the references that I cannot read. A QPQ has been completed. I prefer the original hook as the most interesting - it is also directly cited. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Looking for Magical Doremi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 22:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments later in the week. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 22:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments

[edit]
  • "Release and marketing" should be an actual section, not a subsection.
  • "Soundtrack" should become a section titled "Music" and should also be moved under production.
  • Move the box office information from "Reception" to "Release and marketing".
  • "Accolades" should be a subsection under reception, and since it's only one award, it should be in prose rather than a table.
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·