Talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: User:LeftAire (talk · contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I have been wanting to review a potential GA for quite some time, and I will start with this one. Please give me seven days to review the article properly and its sources (and even request help for aspects with which I may not be familiar). I do plan to do as thorough of a review as possible. Leave a response on my page if I fail to get back to the review within seven days. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you be able to incorporate info from the article/essay you provided? I actually haven't had much time to look through it, but it seems very informative and usable. PatTheMoron (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'll pull it up sometime later today and give it a read. I only had glanced at the first two pages when I first saw it, so I definitely will read it and see where I can incorporate it if possible. LeftAire (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Covers all notable topics in a broad manner.

Setting

• Remove the comma after future in the first sentence.

Nothing wrong with it otherwise. In comparison to other manga articles that are GA that I've read, the setting (or plot) all appear to not need citations.

Fine the way it is.

Plot

• Selm was the only one of the Forest People to tell Nausicaä of the purpose of the Sea of Corruption, and it was during her deep sleep after being absorbed by the Ohmu. However, the presentation without mentioning the names of the supporting characters is better suited for the article; so if its possible, could it be reworded w/o mentioning Selm by name (e.g. One of the Forest People confirmed to Nausicaä the purpose of the Sea of Corruption or Nausicaä's recieved affirmation of the Sea of Corruption's purpose by one of the Forest People after being assisted and rescued them).

You could probably start rearranging from here: 'She is recovered by her companions, people she met after leaving the Valley and who have joined her on her quest for a peaceful coexistence. The fact that the mold can be manipulated and used as a weapon disturbs Nausicaä. Her treks into the forest have already taught her that the Sea of Corruption is actually purifying the polluted land. The Forest People, humans who have learned to live in harmony with the Sea of Corruption, confirm this is the purpose of the Sea of Corruption and show Nausicaä a vision of the restored Earth at the center of the forest.

Feel free.

Development

Precursors and Early Development

• Add 'while' in front of working and a comma after 'Cinema'.
• Get rid of the comma after 'Two projects were proposed to Tokuma Shoten'.
• Not sure if 'to be' is necessary.
• Initially rejected? Were the two projects ever accepted? If the two projects were never accepted, initially is unnecessary. Clarification, please.
• Read the manga section for more information on corrections.

Two commas to separate parts of a sentence are fine. To be indicates that the project was proposed but not developed beyond sketches and ideas at the time. It has only recently been realised as a manga and as yet has not been adapted as animated film. Kinda like "It was to have been set ... ". If that isn't clear from the sentence or unnecessary feel free to rephrase.

Influences

• 'Nakao's influence on his work has been noted by Shiro Yoshioka'. Other people have their influences mentioned in some amount of detail. If his cannot be noted, it might not be necessary.
• The last sentence involving Kentaro Takekuma may need to be separated, or at the very least have 'created in Watercolour and printed in colour' removed. It doesn't seem relevant.

Crux of why, as far as I'm concerned, this nomination is unnecessary but at the very least premature. The sentence about Yoshioka's reference to Nakao is a "place holder sentence", indicating something that must still be developed. Influences and themes should still be expanded based on the plethora of such un-utilised and under-utilised reference materials available. The conversation with Callenbach, from which the Minamata reference comes, should also be used here more extensively but has only been hinted at in a reference to Cavallaro's book. See for an other example the underdeveloped references to Religious studies and Utopian concepts so far only really mentioned in the Film section of this article.

I think that mentioning that Shuna was 'created in Watercolour and printed in colour' and "contrasting" that with information about information about how Nausicaa was partially done in pencil as well as inked line art is relevant. I see it as much the same as mentioning that a work created by, for example Rembrandt, was done "oil on canvas" rather than "dry point" etc is also relevant. It provides interesting detail about the works themselves. Mentioning such detail here casually places each work within Miyazaki's oeuvre.

Creation

• 'Frederik L. Schodt observed that Nausicaä is different from other Japanese manga' should probably start off with Frederik L. Schodt observed differences between Nausicaä and other Japanese manga or something akin to it.
• According to Takekuma section probably could be combined. Something like According to Takekuma, because of Miyazaki's use of pencil without inking for much of the series, the options in line variation is not available seems better.

Have rephrased one line. Don't think your other suggestions are improvements, personally I quite like how I wrote that part about Takekuma's observations. Feel free to edit, however, and we'll see where we'll end up in the rewrites...

Media

Manga The information regarding the publication of the last chapter has been repeated (first instance in Precursors and Early Development). Considering the lack of citations for the first instance, and the relevance better suited for this section, I think that it can be deleted from the 'Precursors'. Moving the information from 'The final panel is dated January 28, 1994' to the end of the paragraph into this section is more appropriate, too.

I agree. The information about the conclusion of serialization was slightly expanded after a move but was always intended for this section of the article.

Other

• The use of 'initially rejected' again.

Reception

• The first two sentence needs to be combined as one.
• Jason Thompson may need information on his occupation or mention something akin to in an article in House of 1000 Manga/Anime News Network, since everyone else in the section has either their occupation, or the book, article, etc. being referenced in the sentences.
• The first sentence of the last paragraph needs to be separated into multiple sentences. The length makes it an uneasy read.

Feel free to edit.

Citations

• Miyazaki citation dated to October, 10, 1982 appears to not be linked to a specific page, but to the main page of the Animage page. Please fix.

See below

Sources

• The two Scott Ryan sources have Harvard referencing errors. If you need to see it, here's this script. Click and follow instructions, ask if you need any help with it.
• It appears that none of the Stonebridge page links are working as of now, but that's due to renovations. If you can find links to the books elsewhere in the meantime, that would be great I suppose I shouldn't be too nit-picky in this matter, I suppose...
• The Animage links all are to the main page of the website. Is it possible to have direct links?

All Animage references are directly from print volumes of the magazine. The url for the magazine's website was merely included as an extra in the references. As far as I know these magazines are not currently available online at the publisher's website.

Overall

• Well-written?

• Prose quality:
• Manual of Style compliance:

It would be fine if aforementioned errors were fixed; it's rather close.

• Verifiable?

• Reference layout:
• Reliable sources: Animage links need to be fixed
• No original research: None dectected

• Broad in coverage?

• Major aspects: Very detailed in coverage
• Focused: Close

• Neutral?:

• Stable?:

• Illustrated, if possible, by images?

• Appropriate licensing: Looks good
• Relevance and captioning: Possibly could benefit from one of the cover of the artbooks, or other releases of the books in other countries, though more than two images seems a bit much for this article.

• Pass or Fail?: .

Nothing major, the prose and citation links are what holding this article back. Feel free to ask for second or third opinions. I'll attempt to add that information onto the article assuming everything is fixed. I'll leave the hold for 7-8 days. Let me know if anything comes up to where you cannot finish improvements by then. LeftAire (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm not that interested in GA nominations. As fas as I'm concerned there is still a lot of work to be done to properly incorporate the contents of several referenced sources and to rectify the current omission of contents from other available reference works. Not only is this article not complete unless those things and other matters are dealt with, imo, but none of the Nausicaa articles can be considered truly stable either until it is resolved how related articles are to be improved - which may still result in considerable shifts of (overlapping) materials between them. Each editor must figure out what his or her priorities are but as far as I'm concerned- if you are capable of improving the contents of this article I'd rather see you devote your time to that effort although that could mean you become a contributor rather than a GA nomination reviewer. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read the manga, but overall I'm not so sure if I could become a major contributor like some of the others. I wouldn't know exactly where to look to find the articles (e.g. on the Animage page). From what it seems there is confusion on the edits, and not all of the citation issues have been fixed, but I want to get a consensus (especially from PatTheMoron, since he nominated it) before failing the article. I actually thought that the film section of the article did a pretty good job of not derailing the article and making sure to tie in the manga in comparison. I suppose the layout of the film version of Nausicaa is fine, too. It's just a matter of preference. I think that it would be better to wait the full seven days before failing, though. Thanks for your input, it's good to get a pulse of the article status from the editors themselves... LeftAire (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I could try my hand at fixing the errors and elements in question, but I'll need some very specific instructions. I recently finished the manga, and I mainly thought that the article was GA-worthy because it goes into a lot of detail on many areas of the topic. It seems pretty close, but I'll just need some help in getting it to reach that mark. PatTheMoron (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Where would you need the assistance, and is there any willing participants to help you? I'm not averse to giving more specific instructions, but I don't want to tread outside of my area for a GA review. Also, I wouldn't be able to respond until roughly 24 hours from now, though... LeftAire (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for a second opinion just to make sure. Although it is very informative, I want to get a second opinion on the status due to my relative inexperience to the process. The prose is the biggest concern, and it's possible I fail the article so the improvements that Verso.Sciolto alluded to. LeftAire (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Verso.Sciolto You said that you the article needed expanding on certain people's input of Nausicaa (like Nakao). Have you given any suggestions to the users that have contributed to this article? I know you're rather indifferent about the whole GA nomination process, but for the sake of improving the articles related to this subject (as I would like to see a Miyazaki subject represented as some of the better work on Wikipedia), there seems to be some users that have place work on the article since my review was placed that could be willing to participate. Just a thought...LeftAire (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In a way the entire section starting with "Among the inspirations for the environmental themes ... " is a suggestion. It may not be an explicit suggestion to a specific editor but based on your comment about Yoshioka/Nakao I think it would be fair to say that you can recognise it as such. The article doesn't really say yet what those environmental themes are, does it? I say that as the person who wrote that section. It simply isn't finished yet, as far as I'm concerned. Working on this article and related articles has always been a tag team effort where one person initiates a change and an other person takes it further or reverts. Several people have not edited in a while and I've kind of taken a wait and see approach myself. The nomination took me by surprise because I thought it was recognised that the article needs more work, i.m.o. expansion. I'm not in a rush. I think this review has already resulted in some improvements but I also note that you haven't received a whole lot of feedback from other editors. Work on this and related articles will continue. As before it has generally been at a glacial pace interspersed with sudden bursts of intense activity.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. I'll fail the nomination, and I suppose that someone will nominate it when it's ready. Frankly, I think the article when completed would be a strong GA, and pretty darn close to an Featured Article-type status. If I ever come across any information to improve the article, or anything related to this series, I think I will devote my energies to it rather than being a reviewer. I wonder how I'd access this information, though, I think I got lucky looking for that Nausicaa excerpt from Japan Review (as I was originally looking for something related to the The Pillow Book from Shonagon). I hope I didn't come of as too pushy or demanding; I'm accustomed to being on the other side of these nominations, and this was definitely a learning experience. Thanks for your cooperation, and for all contributions from everyone else to the process. LeftAire (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)