Talk:Satoshi Kon/GA1

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

Reviewer: New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Starting. Will get onto finishing this soon. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

After finishing my review - and some minor copyedits - I feel that this article is right to the point of toeing the good article line. The only things holding it back:


 * 1) The last reference needs to be expanded;
 * 2) The filmography section is largely unreferenced. OPUS is among the best examples of this; it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. To an uneducated reader this makes it difficult to verify.

Once these are fixed please ping me and I will gladly pass the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the bare ANN reference and replaced it with the book citation from Osmond. The OPUS book is fairly obscure, but I did provide two cites, one giving basic information and a look at the work and the other providing the collected release date. OPUS is not a film though and I did manage to get that citation for Seraphim as a collaboration. Since you wanted more citations for the filmography, I did a lot more there as well. I didn't think these really could be contentious, but rather than citing the credits themselves, I just used Osmond and Catsuka (which did an exhibition on Kon). ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While I'm not trying to make any extra work for you, I still feel that a few entries in the filmography, manga, and literary works sections need additional citations. As it stands now for example, I don't see that a reader could trust that - say - Paprika: Dream Children was an actual work of his. Additionally, what do the numbers after some of the entries mean (ie 123 following Paranoia Agent and Tokyo Godfathers)? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the manga, last I checked that hasn't been released properly since his passing, with a full publication. Now the "123" is part of the source verification, it is the page number consulted from the book. So source 39, page 123 in those cases. I find this format to work best when I use differing pages without making new references. Its just a different style is all. Though I doubt there is much issue with the references. I could use the personal/official website of Kon. I didn't think that something with his name on it could really be contested here, since if you have it, you'd see it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer:

Sorry, this is going to be a lot of work.


 * Using Toolserver Checklinks tool, Refs 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 35 and 37 are dead.
 * The following references have domain or sub-domain redirects: Refs 6, 8, 16, 18 and 30.
 * Given this is EN wiki, an english translation of all foreign language titles should be available, using the trans_title parameter in the references.
 * The referencing style of this article is inconsistent:
 * All konstone.s-kon.net references should have publisher as Satoshi Kon
 * publisher field is not filled in for Refs (4, 7, 8, 15, 19, 21 and 24)
 * date field is not filled in for Refs 4, 31 and 41.
 * last and first not filled in for Midnight Eye interviews and Ref 30 (TIME).


 * Ref 27 should be expanded to full ref with title and date.
 * Suggestion: After all the above referencing problems are fixed, archival parameters such as archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl should be filled in with Wayback/Archive.is urls to prevent further linkrot. Extremepro (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I had thought I did the external link check but it obviously slipped my mind. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most were easy fixes. 12 and 13 are not captured, but the information is elsewhere, so I cited and removed the dead links. And the rest of these issues are FA matters and not GA ones - even dead links are acceptable according to policy, but fixing those are pretty important. Much of the site got shuffled around and I disagree with putting the publisher as Satoshi Kon for the website because he's deceased - he's not running or publishing the material. I do not have the ability to properly translate the titles to "correct English", but they would need to be fixed before going to FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work on finding archived urls. Kon as publisher and trans_title and most of the other points aren't needed for GA-level. However, I think fixing the redirecting urls is (which are currently refs 6, 8, 15, 17, 29). Twitch Films review in the external links is also a redirect - but that can be addressed in FA. I'll pass this review once the redirecting urls have been fixed. Extremepro (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirecting urls? I do not know what you mean. They are not dead and WP:GA says they only need to be verifiable - which includes dead links - so I disagree that whatever the issue is that it would prevent passage because this is not stated anywhere in the GA criteria. More so, I don't really know what you are asking because I get there just fine on clicking the links. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed all the redirecting urls and other problems. Extremepro (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)