Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Garden of Words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Garden of Words

[edit]

Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden

  • ALT4 was removed because the hook was recently used for another DYK. – Maky « talk » 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

5x expanded by Maky (talk). Self nominated at 21:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

  • Thanks for working on this article; I watched the film when it premiered in the theaters last year and loved it. Onto the nom: the article was expanded more than fivefold the days before nomination, and it's been further expanded since then, so no problems there. It is also sufficiently sourced with RS. The hooks are all within length limits and interesting enough. However, I think the explanation of ALT2 in the article can be better explained if you either include the hiragana (こい) for koi or the kanji for lonely sadness (which is written in kanji as 孤悲 in the film's tagline as seen in the poster). In addition, per WP:NOPRICES, I don't think you should list prices in the Media section. -- クラウド668 22:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cloud668: Thank you very much for the review! Sorry about the prices. I didn't know about WP:NOPRICES, and I figured the suggested retail price had encyclopedic value. Anyway, the prices are gone. Also, the moderators here will ask for a source check for close paraphrasing, so if you could please check that for me, I'd appreciate it. (^.^)
As for your suggestion, I'm not quite sure I know what you want to see or how to implement it. Unfortunately I can't speak or read Japanese, and know almost nothing about hiragana and what you're trying to get across. I could only go with my sources. If it's an easy fix in the article, please do so. I've also asked my translator if she has any thoughts on this since we're thinking about tweaking this bit to comply with what Shinkai wrote on his website (another Japanese source we'll be adding). – Maky « talk » 00:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Maky: Okay, did a dupcheck and there aren't any offending issues. Now that I took a closer look at the references, I am wondering if you could explain how The Otaku's Study (currently ref 1), Beneath the Tangles (ref 30), Anime and Manga (ref 37), Geekenstein (ref 100), Midnight Eye (ref 101; probably fine though WP:FILM's Japanese cinema task force did doubt them before), and Yam-mag (ref 102) are considered RS. I don't think these are a issue for DYK, but I think they might be brought up in your GAN. -- クラウド668 19:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cloud668: I've posted a question or two about sources before at WikiProject Anime and manga before, initially about another DYK nom (also a Shinkai film). Although I didn't get many responses, the response from ChrisGualtieri was very helpful. Like him, I also look carefully at my sources. Most of the ones you listed, I believe, are peer reviewed by an editor, and all discuss the topic very knowledgeably. The only time I've had sources provide incorrect information was when several acceptable review sites incorrectly named the identity of the narrator of Dareka no Manazashi (contrary to the credits) and one German site that incorrectly reported that Dareka no Manazashi premiered with The Garden of Words at the GCFF. In the case of the latter, I noticed because no other source confirmed it, plus I wrote to the GCFF to confirm my suspicions. My point is that any source can have bad information, but these sources seem to hold up and add quality information to the article. Even I was initially skeptical of "Beneath the Tangles", but again, the author is very knowledgable and offers a very valuable critique of the plot, something no other reviewer even attempted. Anyway, as you pointed out, this is a discussion for the GAN. If everything looks okay, can we go ahead with the DYK? Thanks again for your careful critique over a very, very long DYK nom! – Maky « talk » 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it's good to go! Sorry that I was fussing over those minor things, but I, too, would like to see it get through GAN without a hitch. -- クラウド668 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Please don't apologize. I appreciate the feedback! – Maky « talk » 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)