Talk:Patlabor 2: The Movie/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA comment

With a quick glance, before the article is reviewed by another editor, I'd recommend adding a detailed fair use rationale for the DVD cover (the image also needs to be reuploaded in a smaller size), placing all inline citations directly after the punctuation with no space in between, and including a box office performance section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize all major points/headings in the article itself (currently, it does not touch upon most of the article) and must not introduce any facts that are not present in the body of the article itself (currently, most of what it is in the lead is not present in the body of the article)
  2. There should be no redlinks in infoboxes
  3. All one-two sentence paragraphs should be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
  4. The "cultural references" section reads like a trivia section, which is not acceptable for Good Articles per WP:TRIVIA. It should be either merged somewhere into the existing prose or deleted.
  5. All citation templates must come directly after the punctuation (ie: blah blah blah.[ref]) Many citations come before the punctuation, and others leave a space after it.
  6. Per the Manual of Style entry on links, Wikilinking the same concepts/people more than once per section (as in the "Production" section for example) should be avoided
  7. The Award section needs to be either expanded or merged with another section (perhaps the "Reception" section) as once sentence cannot be its own Level 2 header.
  8. The plot section immediately begins discussing labors without explaining what they are
  9. The verb tense in the first sentence under "pre-2002" is confused. The operation "goes wrong" because they "came under attack."
  10. The first sentence under "2002" reads "The year is 2002, three years after the Ark Incident had been quelled by members of the Special Vehicles Section 2, Division 2." Is the "Ark Incident" is the one that was mentioned in the previous paragraph or something from the first movie? Furthermore, the entire paragraph introduces a whole range of characters without any context of who they are. When writing this section, one cannot assume that the reader has read the article on Patlabor: The Movie or seen the actual film. The entire section is completely out of context and needs to be rewritten assuming that the reader of the article knows nothing about the first movie.
  11. The last "paragraph" of "2002," which is really just one long run on sentence, has verb confusion as well. Furthermore, it leaves the plot entirely incomplete as it does not summarize what happens in the end of the movie, for example. In addition to the lack of context, then, the article also fails on broadness of coverage because the plot section is unfinished.
  12. Similarly, as mentioned above, the characters section is incomplete without the inclusion of all of the major characters (including the ones that were present in the first movie)
  13. I also question the neutrality of the article, as there are some places where POV words are unnecessarily inserted into the prose. For example, from the "Basis" section, the first sentence reads "At the time of Patlabor 2, released in 1993, a lot of tremendous issues had faced the Japanese government in both the domestic and international level." "Tremendous" does not strike me as an encyclopedic descriptor.

The above are only the most pressing concerns that I have about this article. For these reasons, I am going to fail the article rather than put it on hold, as I feel that the problems above are too major and critical to be adequately addressed within the constraints of the hold. If you feel that this decision is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Patlabor2DVD.jpg

Image:Patlabor2DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Patlbor.jpg

Image:Patlbor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Overall, I find this article highly confusing. What is “the Ark” and why is it important to this movie? Who are the characters mentioned in the first few sentences under “2002” and what is their significance? Is the mission to Cambodia a real event or is it fictional? If the mission is a fictional event that takes place in a real peacekeeping mission, something to the effect stating that it is a fictional account which takes place in an actual historical setting. In that regard as well, the section on cultural references is confusing as well. Overall, it would appear that this article assumes a heavy familiarity with the first film in the series, which is not always the case and thus can leave a reader feeling confused rather than informed. The edits requested in the previous GA review were certainly implemented, but not always with the necessary thoroughness to bring this article up to standard, in addition to the fact that it probably introduced new problems to the prose. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There is only one image for this article: in the infobox. Are there other images that could be added?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Changing the Title

I believe the title should be changed to Patlabor 2: The Movie. All versions of its DVD say Patlabor 2: The Movie and so does Amazon, Rottentomatoes, and Animenewsnetwork.


http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=410 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/patlabor_2_the_movie/


EDIT: One more thing, Brian Ruh (who wrote a book about Mamoru Oshii) also cites the movie as Patlabor 2: The Movie in his book Stray Dog of Anime: The Films of Mamoru Oshii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepusual (talk • contribs) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the main sites that use Patlabor: The Movie 2 is Wikipedia, IMDB (terrible place for accuracy), and Bittorrent sites. The main reason Patlabor: The Movie 2 has more results than Patlabor 2: The Movie is because most of the results are form Bittorrent sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepusual (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patlabor_2:_The_Movie/Archive_1&oldid=1079074368"