Talk:Persona 3 The Movie: No. 1, Spring of Birth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Since I'd like to get my own nomination reviewed (and a second is almost done), I think it's only fair that I review this as well as Arkham Origins to help with the backlog. To that end, I'll write up the few issues that I think stand between this article and something I'd be happy to call a GA:

• First, and most glaringly, the plot section is really short. It's almost like an advertisement, in that it doesn't state what actually happens past the first act or so. This is nice for fans who don't want spoilers, but Wikipedia recommends otherwise. Can it be expanded significantly? Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help improve this article Tezero. The plot was the first thing I would have expanded, unfortunately I'm not in a position where I am able to view a film from Japan this soon in its release cycle from where I am. If I'm not mistaken with films of this nature, WP:ANIMANGA usually waits until they make their way over to the west through official release media before summing up an adequate plot. Although if someone had viewed the film in Japan they are more than welcome to contribute in this section. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it's not ideal, and you should still fix it when the film comes out here, but I'll let it slide. (I'd just torrent it, but you don't have to.) Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good job citing the main character list. What about the supporting cast, though? This shouldn't be hard, considering that you were able to find sources for the main characters. (The main character list is also a little excessive in detail for the type of section it is—anything past a sentence or two, per film article conventions, should be moved elsewhere, like the Production section—but I'll let this slide for now as this isn't an FAC.) Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the film in relation to what it is based on, the supporting cast is not as noteworthy as the main cast so I'm still debating as to whether or not I should leave or remove them. In any case, they were all collected in the table over here. Any thoughts? —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not cite them from this, like the other article does? Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There we go. Sorry this took so long. —KirtZ^Message 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Tezero (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• In Development, de-italicize "Atlus." Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• The word "Finally" isn't really necessary in the last sentence of Development, but if you're keeping it, add a comma.

Comma added. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Add a comma after "Meguro" in the first sentence of Music. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Get rid of all the italics in the second paragraph of Marketing. Kotaku's a website and the rest are elements from the film and real-life places, if I'm not missing any. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of Promotion: why is the fact that it was a full moon relevant? Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The film is based on the Persona 3 video game and the full moon happens to be an integral part of its story and gameplay. Aniplex undoubtedly tried to apply use of this feature to the real world to increase the hype for the film. This makes its noteworthy as a promotional tactic. Its also included in some of the sources, mentioned numerous times in the official twitter account and the official website has a lunar calendar. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. Can't believe I missed that. Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Un-bold "Tanaka's Amazing Commodities." This should be reserved for something that the entire section focuses on and no others really touch, like Pokémon Emerald on the Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire article. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• De-italicize "Green House Co. Ltd." Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Reception and themes" should become just "Reception", and the second paragraph should move to Development as it isn't really relevant to the critics. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the second paragraph of "Reception and themes" was in another section a few months ago, however when the critic began talking about the themes of "teen suicide" I figured it may be best to have the sections combined rather than splitting the Reception. I tried to make it look something like this section in The Dark Knight article, despite there not being any analysis. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I wish there was more in the way of reviews to flesh actual reception out and thus split Themes, but I'll buy that. Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Near the end of the article: why was "coming" deliberately misspelled? If there's no available reason, leave it, but it seems like an odd bit for the source to leave out. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It might have been a promotional tactic however, there was no available reason released at the time. Although if I find something in the future I'll be sure to cite it. —KirtZ^Message 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that the source adequately asserts that the misspelling was deliberate. To be less presumptuous, remove that last clause and add a [sic] after "comming". Tezero (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How's that? —KirtZ^Message 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Good! Let's do this. Tezero (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)