Template:Did you know nominations/Tenshi no Koi
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Orlady (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Tenshi no Koi
[edit]- ... that the 2009 film Tenshi no Koi was based on a Japanese cell phone novel?
Created/expanded by Bollyjeff (talk). Self nom at 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree with Odie5533. Particularly, the reception section needs a lot of expansion. Reviews are not quoted, but instead they were just described as "good", which might be judgmental without evidence. In addition, there are evidences of plagiarism, like the sentence "The film under-performed with around $2 million in ticket sales in Japan, but it is marketable in Asia as a hip date movie and fashion Bible" (compare to this. The last two references are also not formatted properly and are bare URLs. Lastly, I do not think that this article is long enough to satisfy a causal reader. --Lionratz (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Solved the above problems that are cited by me. Can someone verify that?--Lionratz (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing the plagiarism. I had searched for only a couple phrases and did not come across it myself. In regards to the reception section, it definitely needed expansion, but I don't think that's relevant for DYK nominations unless it violated NPOV or was not cited. The Nihon Review specifically states that the critic thought the movie was "Good" (see the bottom of [1]) and reviews do not need to be quoted but can be summarized. In any case, thank you for expanding the article; it is much improved after your contributions. After taking care of the plagiarism problem
, I stand by my assessment of passing the nomination.*EDIT* I should also note that I agree the citations should have been formatted correctly and I did overlook this. After formatting them, however, I do think the article can be passed. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing the plagiarism. I had searched for only a couple phrases and did not come across it myself. In regards to the reception section, it definitely needed expansion, but I don't think that's relevant for DYK nominations unless it violated NPOV or was not cited. The Nihon Review specifically states that the critic thought the movie was "Good" (see the bottom of [1]) and reviews do not need to be quoted but can be summarized. In any case, thank you for expanding the article; it is much improved after your contributions. After taking care of the plagiarism problem
Thanks for helping. Anyway, I think that a third opinion is needed because we might not be neutral parties in the assessment of this article anymore. But yes, I agree that this article should be passed. (Do note that I deleted the symbol in my previous response because it is no longer appropriate)
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odie5533 (talk) | Odie5533 (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Odie5533 (talk) | Lionratz (talk) |
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) |
After thinking through, I think that this article should pass. Can someone assess if the hook is interesting?
- I sure thought it was interesting, because I had never heard of a cell phone novel before, and I suspect meany readers of en.wiki have not either.
- Agreed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)