Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll do this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Right off the bat, prose and errors jump right out at me here. In the lede, " led by protagonist Major Motoko Kusanagi". Chief Aramaki runs it. Motoko is the field commander.

Setting needs expansion and work.

"The series takes place in the near future, where many people can become cyborgs with prosthetic bodies." - 'where many people can become' sounds off. I think it would be good to put its cyberpunk background in here as well. The society itself is different from our own and should be covered in the setting as well. Spinning off to its own article does not justify a short paragraph like this either.

Story needs work as well. It doesn't adequately cover the events and is particularly hard to follow, the prose isn't wonderful either. "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou." For example.

Also 'Motoko Aramaki' in the second part is confusing. Why did her last name change? Ghost in the Shell 1.5 seems better, but it could use a bit of expansion. The varying names and changes are going to be hard for unfamiliar readers to follow.

It could use a character section, as the article seems lacking without it. The live action film section lacks an update. Will anything ever become of it? I don't know why the anime series isn't covered either. As the hatnote says 'This article is about the media franchise.' It should cover all the media in some form including the video games. This article needs a lot of updating and expansion to cover the material, it really is rather bare bones. I'll put it on hold, but this will take a lot of work to pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can fix to make things clearer and have a more encyclopedic tone. However i cant fix the subjective issues you have with the plot. I dont understand what the issue is with "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou." Her conscioussness merged with the Puppeteer and she woke up in a new prostetic body.


 * There is no clear reason why her name changed unfortunately, so i cant give much of an answer. The plot of Ghost in the Shell is a bit difficult. The 1.5 plot is the one i personally think looks the worst but at the same time it looks like that because there is no overarching plot that the manga follows so listing the story chapter by chapter is better without saying "Section 9 in their four investigations" So i will be editing that more so it doesnt say "In chapter this" and "In chapter that".


 * I'm not so sure a "character" section is absolutely necessary for GA status as i noticed many anime and manga articles not have a character section.


 * Although i would like to add its cyberpunk background, the problem is not much has been revealed in the manga. Plus the articles in there have a lot of Original research and not all of it falls in the same series, in fact most of it falls in the Stand Alone Complex series which is an alternate continuation. So i dont want to add anything thats not necessary and eventually will be removed for original research.


 * The article is now mainly about the manga since they have been merged hence why reception and development are solely on the manga. The article however does cover all media directly relating to the series but does not over media based on the adaptations based on the manga. For example: It would be trivial to list the soundtracks on the main article if the soundtracks are related more too the film over the manga.


 * The live action film has hardly any info. This happens quite often. Many producers want to create a live action film of a manga or anime. Should i just say " As of 2013 no news or reports of its progress has surfaced" at the end of it?


 * I think this was a hasty review considering that the anime series is covered. I dont know why you say it isnt.Lucia Black (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Little personal info here, I love the series. So I've delved into the background and the symbolism and the world of GITS very closely. This article is about the franchise, I'd EXPECT a character section for key figures like Motoko. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex does a better job of covering the relevant material then this article. If I am reading about the franchise I do not think that the key reoccurring characters should require a hop to learn even basic details about them. GA is not explicit in what it must have and what it should have, only that it be both broad and detailed within expectations. Not giving readers key character overviews on the key page is a problem.

Since you do not see my concerns I'll point them out with this sentence. "After merging with The Puppeteer, Kusanagi awakes in one of her safe house and a new body given to by Batou."

She has safe houses or just one? I also thought that she needs no physical body and exists on the net itself. With the dolls (never covered either...) just being physical tools for her. So even here the overview is wrong and critically so.

Tachikomas are also footnoted with half a paragraph dedicated to them, a long icon of the series. They played a role like Data of Star Trek and serve to further the philosophy that GITS pushes so hard.

Also as for the anime and the movies, nothing is mentioned of the top-tier graphics used and how it is still cutting edge even today and really pushed the envelope. Thi→s page is better suited to the manga then to the franchise. It is lacking detailed information on the series, the novels and while it does cover the manga, does nothing to bring up the philosophy and Shirow's vision of the future. It doesn't even gloss over Motoko's gender identity and sexuality matters, it outright ignores them. It ignores political commentary and society issues that are very detailed and are key to the lengthy plot lines. GITS is dialog heavy and extremely philosophical, its not action based and to avoid key elements of what makes the series unique and identifiable is perhaps the single biggest issue I can take with it.

Reliable sources are abound for GITS, its not original research to call it cyberpunk, its not original research to discuss transhumanism. Its part of the plot itself. Attention to detail and the fictional universe's workings are going to be difficult because it is foreign enough to throw most readers a few curveballs, but this page barely scrapes the surface of the franchise and what it truly is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no detailed studies about this that are accessible. Ive searched for these things through constant interviews and reviews of the series. Some of the things (if not most) actually is original research such as her gender identity (again only in her stand alone complex series) and sexuality (there is no such discussion unless by fans).


 * I feel we need a less bias reviewer.Lucia Black (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You got me. Someone who actually knows something about the series and you are complaining about that? I'm not going to rubberstamp this and give a GA when it doesn't deserve it. Let's take another example. The Laughing Man. Which has its own article on Wiki. The Catcher in the Rye is a key part for Stand Alone Complex. This article doesn't even mention the Laughing Man, let alone the repeated Salinger references. Oh and those come straight from the episodes and the book itself. But you know the official interview is pretty much a reliable source. And while anime news network may not seem super reliable, but the news feed is according to WP:A&M/I. I remember Newtype doing a full thing on GITS as well covering the it and I.G when SAC came out. That is a reliable source. But you can alsouse the interviews like this.  Though the original ones on the DVDs and other places are great. Such as this from IG.  "I created an episode that was not written in the original manga, and recounted her past. And in order to emphasize her past, I put a love affair in there. Through this process, I finally understood that this mysterious superhuman was actually a real human being with a miserable past. And as a human who was chosen to gain this superhuman power, she probably believes that she has an obligation to use that ability for the benefit of others. This was my conclusion. You know, just as a very talented athlete gives us inspiration through his or her efforts, she is stoically trying to use her capability in her own way." Though you can also get such official 'essays' from IG as well on Cyberbrains and what not.  The material and the concepts, the philosophy and the development of the series covers it without going into unreliable resources. You just have to look for it. Though the best ones are in Japanese. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a rubber stamp GA. Im asking for a less bias review. You are giving some help, but at the same time youre asking for information that may not necessarily cover this article's current quality.

Rather youre disapointed this article is about the manga and arguing about how little it covers but actually you're trying to make it into an overall franchise. Your taking this as a Fan and as a fan you assume there is an extensive ammount of coverage. You are focusing on Stand Alone Complex series. This is about the manga (mainly) and which will subsequently mention the other adaptations such as the The film and TV series. Thats why the Plot, Development and Reception and such is directly relating to the Manga.

These elements were not introduced in the manga so i cant cover it in the main article because the article is about the manga. I can add it in and state the Stand Alone Complex series expands on such matters but you're not really asking for that, youre asking for me to put it as the accepted setting of all GITS media in which i can't because each series is different from the other.

So let me make this clear as day....this article is mainly about the manga.Lucia Black (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, do not go changing the scope of the article as you did in this diff. It said that this article is about the media franchise. You are changing the scope of the article yet you are keeping in it? That does not seem fair. I began the review about the media franchise, just because you want to change it to the manga doesn't mean I'm going to pass it as it is. Your claim of bias is unfounded and is not constructive when I am trying to assist you. And FYI, people are supposed to have the material when they review something, I happen to own the works and have them on hand, so I am more then well aware that even the plot is incorrect and needs fixing. There are many GITS related articles on Wikipedia and the template reverts back to this one as the main page. If you are going to put one up about the manga, do so on Ghost in the Shell (manga), but don't try and obscure or remove the scope of the article simply because I didn't give the answer you wanted. This review is on the media franchise. You can either fix it or I can fail it, but please do not disrupt Wikipedia to try and make a point again. That falls under WP:POINTY. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What point is there that you claim i'm trying to make? WP:POINT is about disruptive edits in order to make a point. I made that edit not to be disruptive but to clarify. I changed it because at the time manga and the franchise were separated when the media franchise wasnt really notable on its own. None of the manga were either and it wouldnt make sense to have the manga alone without mentioning the rest of its adaptations. Considering the original media of ghost in the shell (the manga) now merged with the franchise mostly made up of manga info, and all adaptations have their own articles, it is only logical and appropriate to make the article mainly about the manga. The scope hasnt changed, only the focus. It still is a media franchise but now primarily about the manga. Also considering each series was developed differently it would be Original Research to assume all three series share the same elements.

Its almost impossible to be about the media franchise alone when it comes to the article because each one has their own article, so all relevant info would go there. It would be redundant to try to compact that info into one article when they are notable on their own. I also have the material of GITS manga and GITS2. The only one im missing is 1.5. If incorrect then it was only interpretted incorrectly.


 * it may hurt that i use the word "bias" but completely appropriate. You're focused on several in-universe areas that cover their own article.Lucia Black (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are wrong here. Mortal Kombat redirects to the franchise, not to the first game. Much less either of the games with the same name... but I digress. The easiest navigation page for a subject with multiple pages should be the broadest and most wide scoped of all articles, that would be the GITS as a whole as is correctly represented here. The reason why it should be used as this page is obvious from the name, more then one subject traces back to Ghost in the Shell. The manga, the anime, the novel just like Vampire Hunter D is about the whole franchise and not the novel. And more specifically Neon Genesis Evangelion which is not about the anime, but the franchise as well. Do I need to stress the point? Also for Mortal Kombat, I did the GA review for it. That is a very good example of how to do an article on a franchise properly. And yes it links to about 20 different articles from there with its own detailed coverage. Just because an article covers material elsewhere doesn't give a pass on a broad summary of the subject. Earth is a perfect example of that. The GITS franchise is notable, and the material is notable on its own. Just because the series has different stories and characters doesn't mean it isn't related. You do realize the timeline and canon flows, right? They do not have to be all directly connected either, but yes, here is another example of that: Final Fantasy. The games have no relation to each other (exceptions... I know), but Final Fantasy is not about the first game its about the franchise. I'm done beating a dead horse here. The article should be about the franchise as per convention. OK? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion
I am guessing from the comments at the Good article pages that a second opinion is sought. I am willing to try and answer any questions that arise if you both agree. At the end of the day however, it will be up to Chris whether he passes the article or not. If you can't collaborate then the best approach is to simply fail the review (the nominator can withdraw at any time too, which will result in the same outcome) and then renominate the article.

From what I can tell, the major bone of contention here is the scope. I know nothing about this topic so may not be much use. From the little I have read above it would be perfectly justifiable to have one article on the manga and another one on the franchise as a whole. I don't think it is up to the reviewer to say what this article should be about, but if the contents don't match the scope then they are entitled (probably even required) to raise questions. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding from reading between the lines is that if this is about the manga then it may lack focus as it goes into too much detail about the spinoffs and if it is about the franchise then it lacks broadness because it is missing important details.

My advice would be to fail the article as it is, the conversation is already delving into the uncivil which will make the collaboration necessary to achieve a Good article virtually impossible. I then think you need to decide what this article is going to be about and then be consistent in how this is presented. As an aside the prose is quite poor, enough that I would fail the article on that alone. Some examples from the development section:


 * Masamune Shirow was influenced by several books on insects. Shirow had also noticed that young boys in Japan seem to identify to Robot heroes first. - How is this relevant. Needs more explanation, especially as it is the lead in to the section
 * Throughout writing the manga, Masamune Shirow had a struggle of finding of not making it neither too complex nor too simple - Grammar
 *  However for various reasons, he decided not to do so Ambiguous - What were the reason?
 * Shirow considers the manga a completely different kind of work and not a true sequel as the plot of Ghost in the Shell revolved around Public Security Section 9 and Ghost in the Shell 2: Man-Machine Interface follows what happens to Motoko after she merges with the Puppeteer. Confusing sentence - What manga? Too much plot and not enough context.
 * Shirow had drew the color pages on computer, in which he states was difficult to due to technical issues with his computer. Grammar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2013‎ (UTC)
 * You forgot to sign, Aircorn. Anyways, to be blunt about the scope of the topic, the scope was the franchise prior to the review and it was changed after the review began. That's changing the rules as far as I am concerned. Also, it should not have been changed as this article covers all the media and not solely the manga. While it is unbalanced to the manga it still mentions the series, the movies and the video game. As the main incoming link, this article should function as the top level and broad scoped overview of the entire franchise per convention. I do not think I am being uncivil and I have not resorted to pinning negative terms like 'bias' because the reviewer happens to have knowledge of the subject. Only someone grossly uninformed with the subject and not going by the guidelines would consider this article even remotely near the criteria. I'd be happy to fix the poor prose and deal with cleaning it up, but I do not want to be attacked for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and added the two previously unmentioned Ghost in the Shell games to the article, they do not have articles on their own, but I'm being lazy today. I still other important bits missing, but I'll deal with those later. I'm trying to lead by example here in hopes that Lucia Black understands what kind of material I want for a GA. Missing two of the three video games released on major consoles sort of fits that bill I say, but there is far more missing then it is worth pointing out simply because I can research and find it myself, then add it in the time it takes to find it and complain about its absence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA conclusion
This article will not pass, the issues are too deep. I'm going to fail it now. It has no chance of passing GA in its current state and until the issues are seriously addressed it should not be renominated. The scope of the article was changed mid-review by Lucia Black as noted above, more so the Ghost in the Shell (manga) page was unilaterally merged into this page and made into a redirect. The page has been deformed since then, not everything needs to be on one page and Lucia Black does not understand the scope of the matter and does not want me to attempt to fix them here. Thus I will close this as fail and continue to address the many problems of this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The merger was necessary. The article's structure is not an issue and therefore stating it is "deformed" is an opinion at best. Though i agree with one thing "not everything has to be on one page."Lucia Black (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It was not necessary, that's the point. The move should not have been done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was laughably bad, I just improved it a bit. For example, almost every(!) title was not italicized and there were just stupid things like SCE Japan Studio being written as "SCE Studio Japan"(!!). Other things included balded names, random linking, random capitalization, incorrect names, awkward prose, and more. And I think it's still not done. (Yeah, it's still really bad, for example: "Masamune Shirow was influenced by several books on insects. Shirow had also noticed that young boys in Japan seem to identify to Robot heroes first." lol) --Niemti (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and btw: wasn't "Major" just a nickname/nom-de-guerre (from the actual war?), not her actual rank in the S9? And wasn't she always being addressed by others as Major, never "Motoko"/"Kusanagi"? If I'm right about it (I'm not sure, it's several years I last watched/read/played anything GitS), it's another huge mistake that needs to be corrected. (or it could be that "Motoko Kusanagi" is actually a pseudonym/fake name, I don't really remember, but I'm pretty positive it was practically always only "Major".) --Niemti (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)