Talk:Ghost in the Shell (1995 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to review this article--it sounds like a very interesting film! I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a response to your nomination. Comments to follow in the next 1-7 days. I'm no expert in anime or manga, so bear with me if I ask some elementary questions as to content. Thanks in advance for all your work! Jburlinson (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already made a few minor wording and/or punctuation changes in the article. 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.

Agreed. It what it once was done by Ryulong. And I agreed with it. I've changed the note to reflect the citation of "The Wachowskis" and highlighted it is also an editorial decision but did not allude to the personal reasons why. It may have to be dealt with for the FA level, but by all means, this not something I'll quibble over. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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?

Precisely. Is that an issue? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. It's just an unusual construction to say that someone "espies a conversation". "Espies" implies that a person takes some sort of covert action -- but this may very well be what happens in the film. I just wanted to be sure that the "conversation" was referring to the "explanation". No biggie.Jburlinson (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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.

I broke the link to the real life ministry, but it is set in Hong Kong according to the director. I decided to place that at the top of the plot to clarify that point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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?

Well, it is an American production, but Shirow Masamune retains rights as the original creator of the work in Japan, Kodansha is the publisher of the manga, but Bandai Visual is the production company and it is probably impossible to be certain, but Manga Entertainment might be responsible for the actual taping. Thought it most is not certainly "1966". I changed it to 1996 to reflect the Region 4 tape on Youtube. Extras in movies are certainly very difficult to pin down and I don't have the UK version that shipped with this in 2009; and it was horribly out of date with terminology and pretty much a joke as a result of its once cutting edge technology being inferior by today's standards. Though as a reliable source about the production of the work - it is definitely among the best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Design:

• Page numbers for the two references to The Analysis of Ghost in the Shell would be appropriate.

I actually screwed up here and used Liquid Metal: The Science Fiction Film Reader which took and translated the passage from the book. I have corrected it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• "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?

Did you think it was any clearer in the production report? HA! Sorry, but yes... I'll tinker with it. I've cleaned it up, only because I understand what they did. Rather than control contrast (scene light and dark, like on your monitor) the light and darkness were incorporated into the cels to ensure that areas would range from bright to dark regardless of the contrast and that it would behave as real sources of light and darkness do. It mimics real lighting conditions only by being representations of real lighting conditions - whereas most works were made lighter or darker by controlling a single contrast and not dealing with individual light and shadow sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• " 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?

It is really hard to describe - since you saw it on Youtube, you remember that weird thermal camo scene with the zoom and distortion? That's it. I can take a crack at this one, but it is really bizarre. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sound:

• "The lyrics of the song itself seem to reflect the union..." -- this sounds like it might be OR. Please supply a reference. Is it mentioned in the "Production report"?

This is one book I could not get my hands on from my library. But the citation is within this source.[1] Though I did cite what I read and confirmed, I also got the link to the GameSetWatch English version of the one for Kawai's music, supported by another source, but I dropped the Ranma 1/2 thing. That's simply comparing two names, but was never explicitly given and hence likely OR, but its been floating around for years.... better off gone till I can personally dig up something. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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?

Correct. Clarified the prose to remove doubt. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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?

Easily able to be done. I'll get to this in a bit if you don't mind. I personally love reading Orbaugh and Napier's analysis.

• I've seen some other critical commentary along the same lines and may add a little bit to this section. Would that be OK?

By all means. I got plenty more myself, but I didn't want to blow it away before I needed to and since I got FA plans, I wanted to present the most authoritative sources I could for analysis. I don't mean to hold back, but some of it is contradictory and outright wrong based upon my own knowledge of the subject. This has happened for several interviews; putting the asserted speculation and the theories crafted on it to rest.. thankfully though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note 2 reads: "The English dubbed version from Manga Video changes the line to "Yeah, I must have a wire loose!". Orbaugh described this change as "sanitized"." -- it's not clear what line is being referred to. I believe there's a line early in the film where a character refers to "that time of the month". Is that the line in question?

Jburlinson (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Could use a bit more context for the note. I meant it to be read in-line, but I can fix that or you can if you want. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll give it a shot. Jburlinson (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception:

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

Okay. Swapped the order so it goes "good" "mixed" "general" to follow the flow. Can add more if needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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) 03:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you liked it and thanks for your time. Just the few points above which I want a bit of discussion on for making it better. I want to make sure that we agree about the direction of things before you pass it; I rarely get detailed feedback and I greatly appreciate it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I enjoyed it. I'll check a couple more things and then pass the article. Jburlinson (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside comments

Hey Chris G. et al., I gave this a more detailed read this afternoon and wanted to add a few suggestions of my own to this review. I realize this article's been a bit contentious, but hopefully my changes will be helpful instead of causing more trouble. (If it's the latter, I apologize in advance!) I did some prose tweaking, mostly for style and brevity, but I also saw a few issues I couldn't immediately resolve and wanted to mention below. Obviously, everyone involved should feel free to revert anything I've done here.

• "Her team, Batou and Ishikawa, triangulate their activity with a garbageman." -- I'm a little confused by this phrase. Who is the "their" here? Is the idea that the garbageman helps them triangulate? Or do they triangulate a signal to his location?

They are hunting him. Unless I am mistaken on the concept, its both. Because the garbageman is sending the signal and the team is trying to identify the source because the garbageman is on the move. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Motoko's demeanor lacks the comedic facial expressions and rebellious nature depicted in the manga. -- this borders on an interpretative statement--a citation here would be helpful if possible. On the other hand, if this isn't mentioned in a source, it's probably a bit off-topic/original research to mention it here.

It is a bit interpretative, but it is based on the RS, which I forgot the exact source of the commentary. The original explained the differences between the media and the SAC and the film and showed that Shirow's comic review was stripped by Oshii. There is no "ape face" or immature "screw you" gestures from Motoko - her rebellious nature was heavily reduced for the film. Remove it if you are worried. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• "which mixed traditional animation with the emerging use of computer graphics, including digital cel work with visual displays" -- seems like this might be a misplaced modifier -- does the "which" here refer to DGA or "the future of animation"? If the former, it seems a little confusing to define DGA two sentences in a row.

It wasn't a misplaced modifier, but it is sorta weird wording now that you point it out. " In 1995, DGA was thought to be the future of animation by integrating traditional animation with computer graphics, digital cel work and visual displays." The contrasting point here is that in 1995 it was top of the line, but in reality the traditional methods are dead and entirely superseded by digital cel work. The source speaks of DGA as the future, but it was only a stepping stone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• " for superior sound throughout the film" -- I'm not quite comfortable with this phrase being in Wikipedia's voice--it's a bit of a value judgement, and it seems to be sourced to the production crew themselves. One possibility would be to simply cut it; "Ghost in the Shell's recording was done with a high-end studio" would already communicate the main idea. Another possibility would be to more clearly attribute it in-text.

Then let's do so - the sound is exceptional by all definitions, but I have not expanded on "why" as of yet. Even still, "superior" is unnecessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• "song's lyric" -- usually lyrics would be plural--but if the song only has one line, "lyric" might be appropriate.

 Done Fixed already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• How does The Sky Crawlers relate to Ghost in the Shell? (i.e., why is one being re-released to celebrate the other?)

Its Oshii. Honestly, I have little idea of why it is billed as a celebration, but that's the official stance and Oshii wanted to "bridge the differences between then and now" essentially. "立ち見となった熱気溢れる会場に登壇した押井監督は「この作品は過去を振り返るだけでなく、現在とのブリッジになっている作品。" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Using the tracklisting template to list the individual names of pieces in the soundtrack may be excessive detail. MOS:FILM's recommendation on this: "Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose." It's probably not enough to cause the article to fail criterion 3b, but I think the best things would be to remove it.

Perhaps. The only one of major note is the choral song. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Was a good idea. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• On a related note, I'm not sure the image File:Ghost in the Shell Soundtrack.jpg meets the fair use criteria, which requires "2. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic." Since the article's about the film, rather than the soundtrack, I'm not sure this qualifies as being the article topic's primary image. I'd suggest removing it, but if you think it's important or that I'm simply wrong about this, I'm happy to get a more expert opinion.

In that case, let's remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody working on this one! I watched this a few times in high school, though it's been a looong time since then; all I can really remember, sadly, is the protagonist fighting the tank. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I added a brief table to show the cast members a little bit ago, I realized that somehow it was missing. I might pull some additional details off the English VHS later on though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick responses and all your work here! Good luck with this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image tags ok
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

• Thank you. The article is stronger thanks to everyone who helped point out and fix the issues - making this one step closer to FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)