User:Jburlinson/draft GITS

I've made a few minor wording and/or punctuation changes. If you have any problems with them, please feel free to revert or let me know if you have questions.

Initial reactions.

Lead:
 * Note 1 might be a little confusing to readers unfamiliar with the personal history of Lana Wachowski. Could I suggest simply making the reference to "The Wachowskis" with the wikilink. Then, if the reader makes the link, he/she can learn all about the situation. This would obviate the need for a note.

Plot:
 * "Kusanagi espies the conversation" -- it's not clear what "the conversation" refers to. Does it refer to the explanation from Section 6 described in the preceding sentence?
 * There's a link to "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs" which leads to the contemporary Japanese cabinet level ministry. Is this the same entity depicted in the story of the film? I ask because it's not clear whether the setting of the story is in Japan or some future Asian country that may or may not be Japan.

Production: Director:
 * This contains the first reference to the Production Report (DVD), which is the most often cited RS for the article. You've done a great job of distilling the information from that information-packed video. My question deals with the attribution for the "report". The version on YouTube does not identify Production I.G. as the creator, but identifies the copyright holders as Shirow Masamune/Kodansha/Bandai Visual/Manga Entertainment, Inc. (1966). Would that be the correct attribution for the citation?

Design:
 * Page numbers for the two references to The Analysis of Ghost in the Shell would be appropriate.
 * "Lighting was different from traditional use, where contrasting details are used, for Ghost in the Shell rather than just contrast darkness actually was integrated into an area in which nothing could be seen and light areas remain bright and visible." -- Sentence is confusing. Could it be re-worded?
 * " The process uses a single illustration and manipulates the image as necessary to produce distortions for effect in combination with a background without altering the original illustration." -- This is confusing. If the image is manipulated and/or distorted, isn't the original illustration altered?

Ghost in the Shell 2.0:
 * The second sentence begins: "For the film's Version 2.0 release..." -- the term "the film" is a little ambiguous.  I assume it refers to Ghost in the Shell, not The Sky Crawlers, is that right?

Critical analysis:
 * I think the inclusion of this section is a good decision, as it details themes identified in the critical literature. It would be good to identify the critics a little more clearly, though, as the average reader will likely not recognize the names. Something like "Professor of Asian Studies Sharalyn Orbaugh" or "critic Austin Corbett" -- would that work?
 * I've seen some other critical commentary along the same lines and may add a little bit to this section. Would that be OK?

Reception:
 * "Ghost in the Shell received overwhelmingly positive reviews..." -- "overwhelmingly" might be a case of WP:EDITORIALIZING -- I suggest omitting it.

That's all I've got at the moment. Let me know if you have any questions. You've done a very good job here. Jburlinson (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)