Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TompaDompa (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 12 April 2024 (→Comments by TompaDompa: Comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Castle in the Sky

Castle in the Sky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Castle in the Sky/archive1

Nominator(s): TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hayao Miyazaki's long and decorated career at Studio Ghibli has become the stuff of legend within animation circles, but Castle in the Sky (1986) – the studio's first work – was where it all started. Initially met with a lukewarm reception, the film has grown in popularity and earnings, becoming a cult classic with a still-devoted following nearly 40 years after its release. After a peer review from Z1720, an excellent GAN review from Rhain, and some pre-FAC copyediting from Vanamonde, I think it's time to complete my year of work on this article. I look forward to hearing your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: I am a first-time nominator, so feel free to leave particularly detailed comments; the source review will require spot-checks; all that jazz. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Done. —TS

• File:Laputa_Castle_in_the_Sky_robot_at_Ghibli_Museum.jpg needs a tag for the original work

  Could you elaborate on what you mean by this comment? —TS

  This is a photograph of a 3D work in a region that does not have freedom of panorama. We thus need to account for the copyright of both the photograph and the original work, and the current tagging appears to cover only the photograph. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the explanation. I see no evidence that the original work is freely licensed, so I've removed the image and nominated it for deletion on Commons. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• File:Isao_Takahata_(cropped).jpg: the uploader has had a large number of works deleted for copyright concerns - are we certain this is own work as claimed? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Checking. —TS

  I'm checking on File:Isao Takahata.jpg, the file this was extracted from. It's been so long since this image has been uploaded that the results are a little muddy, but a reverse image search shows no uses of the file before 2014. Also worth noting is that the file was never mentioned during the many deletion discussions involving Boungawa's other files. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review! I'm working on one and need clarification on another. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser

I liked the article a lot, but I have some concerns. I don't see anything detailing the script-writing process specifically, or any discussion on casting/actors for the original Japanese dub. There's also a lot of content on the design of environments and contraptions, but not so much on characters. Still, my overall impression is good. Will drop prose comments shortly. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to the review! I'll also note that I'm also not super satisfied with § Production, as it lacks the detail one might expect from other film articles. However, this is due to the aspect not being extensively covered in sources, not because this information is simply missing from the article. This was also discussed during the GAN review. At your suggestion, I'll take another look through Miyazaki 2009 to see if I can dig anything out of the interviews, but I don't expect to find much. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose information on casting/actors might generally be more sparse for animated features as well. /DrB

Lead

• "It was well-received by audiences, being voted as one of the greatest animated films of all time in later years. The film also received several notable accolades." - Both sentences have been shortened at the expense of information. The first one is sorta fine, at least I don't immediately know how to "fix" it. The second one could use an ", including.."

  I've made a couple of additions, would you like to take another look? —TS

  That's better. /DrB

Plot summary

• suggest "..in a nearby mining town.."

  Nearby to what? I wouldn't consider the town to be near the airship, as the film depicts Sheeta falling a seemingly great distance. —TS

  Ok, can we add something else? I've managed to convince myself that the sentence could use an adjective before "mining town", in order to flow nicely. /DrB

  @Draken Bowser: How about "19th-century"? It's discussed later in the article, and gives a sense of the time period that wasn't present before. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, could we go with "..an industrial era.." since it's a fictional universe? /DrB

  This sounds fine to me, but I need to ask where you propose to remove text — your change would bring the plot summary a couple words above the 700-word limit. —TS

• "However, Dola's gang and Muska's.." - Might need to add "shortly" after the removal.

  Done. —TS

• "..the same insignia on Sheeta's crystal.." - Prefer "as on" or "as".

  Done. —TS

• "Pazu joins them to attempt.." - Prefer "in an".

  Done. —TS

• "..but is in turn destroyed by the military airship Goliath."

  Done. —TS

• "Sheeta and Pazu pass through the turbulent lightning storm." - Has been foreshadowed by "violent winds", but the introduction is still a bit abrupt as it is written.

  Changed "massive cloud" to "massive storm" earlier in the paragraph, which should help. —TS

• "However, he army arrives.."

  Done. —TS

• "..communicating with Earth.." - A bit unusal, maybe "their headquarters/base camp" (I don¨t remember the plot).

  Changed the whole clause to just "destroying their communications systems". —TS

Themes

• "..relationship with nature and the role of technology." - Prefer "dependence on technology" if the source allows it.

  Not done. Odell & Le Blanc (and other sources, for that matter) discuss these themes more as a relationship than a dependence. I've adjusted the page range of the citation to include some additional context within the source. —TS

  Sounds good. /DrB

• Prefer "..young children as the protagonists."

  Done. —TS

• "..with a younger protagonists generates

  Done. —TS

• "He considers this a focal point in his endeavors. The theme of innocence is explored more focally in Miyazaki's succeeding film My Neighbor Totoro (1988)." - Replace one or the other.

  Done. more focally → further —TS

Release

• "..which critics have noted to be somewhat lower than the performance.." - Which would warrant the removal of "also" in the next sentence.

  Done. —TS

That's about it. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Draken Bowser! I have a couple of questions which I've left above. It might take me a couple of days to browse through the source I mentioned for § Production, but I'll keep you updated if I make any additions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

With the addition of Hahnchen's comments to my extant concerns I'm gonna Oppose on comprehensiveness. Should these problems be addressed at some point in the future I'd be happy to continue the review. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll try to find the time to review this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm. At a glance, the article seems to rather gloss over the connection to Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. Laputa is not linked anywhere in the article, for instance, which seems like an oversight. A quick look at Google Scholar seems to indicate that there is at least a decent amount of literature covering this aspect. The film's entry at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says that "curiously, references to Gulliver and his travels were removed in the English dub", which makes me think that there is a fair bit more that should be covered here (the article is not overly long at roughly 4,700 words as of my writing this). I see that other reviewers have raised comprehensiveness concerns, and this seems to be another instance thereof. Not enough for me to oppose the nomination outright (at least not without looking into it further), but it does give me some pause. TompaDompa (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hahnchen

• Oppose - The reception section is just a list of American regional newspapers. For it to be comprehensive, you need contemporaneous Japanese responses. It doesn't even include specialist press. - hahnchen 12:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)