Talk:Castle in the Sky/GA1

---

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll happily take this one! I'm quite familiar with the subject, having spent considerable time editing Hayao Miyazaki, so I'm keen to find out more. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks in advance, Rhain; I'm looking forward to your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Laputa turns out to harbor → Laputa harbors

  Question: I wrote in this phrase to allude to the characters' discovery of Laputa's weapons system, which they were not aware of before arriving there. I'll remove it if you insist, but would you reconsider? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Of course. I appreciate your explanation; it appeared a little verbose initially, but I agree with your reasoning. ☔

• incredibly dangerous → dangerous

  Done —TS

• Remove in order to

  Done —TS

• Consider removing Miyazaki's 2005 quote; it's up to you, but I don't consider it notable enough for the lead

  Done —TS

• Similarly, consider paraphrasing the second quote about children

  Not done; I think this one is a better fit for the lead. —TS

• Either remove the spaces around the em dashes or swap them with en dashes per MOS:DASH

  All replaced —TS

• $157 million → {{USD|157 million}}

  Already done —TS

• Remove upon its release

  Done —TS

• Consider removing the names of awards and summarising instead

  Done —TS

• I think the quotes (and ref) for "cult status" could be removed as it's sufficiently sourced in the article, but I understand the caution and leave it to you

  Not done. Yeah, I think it could be viewed as an extraordinary statement, especially in the English-speaking world, where the film is possibly not as well-known as in Japan. —TS

I respect that—I guess I forget that it's not as well-known as it deserves to be. ☔

• I don't think the Twitter records are notable enough for the lead

  Removed —TS

• Perfect 700 words! Great work

Thanks! I squeezed that plot until I could squeeze it no longer, lol —TS

• Dashes need changing in the first and last paragraphs per above

• The image caption (particularly Hamill's sentence) needs a reference

  Done —TS

• Hamill has received → Hamill received

  Done —TS

• Add a period to Hamill's sentence per MOS:CAPTION

  Done. Thanks for your help with cleaning up the table formatting as well! —TS

Beginnings of Studio Ghibli

• Add a comma after previous film

  Done —TS

• "a pleasure to watch." → a "pleasure" to watch.

  Done —TS

• Italicise Blue Mountains

  Done —TS

• been born." → been born". per MOS:LQ

  Not done; the quote is of an entire sentence, and complies with this guideline with the period inside quotation marks. —TS

• Consider mentioning that Miyazaki thought of the idea in elementary school, as Suzuki mentions in Stimson 2014

  Done —TS

• Consider mentioning early proposed titles for the film too, like Young Pazu and the Mystery of the Levitation Crystal and Prisoner of the Castle in the Sky, per Miyazaki 1996, p. 252

I'm not sure where this information would easily fit in, and I only brought up the discarded name "Blue Mountains" because it was relevant to the discussion of The Story of Yanagawa's Canals. In any case, Starting Point is a primary source, and I don't remember any secondary sources mentioning these. I'd prefer to leave them out per WP:WEIGHT. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's fair enough; they're not especially important, just something I came across while verifying other refs. ☔

• Link Sahara

  Done —TS

• Link an aircraft used by the Italian military to Caproni Ca.309

Ah yes, I'd forgotten the name of the aircraft when I was writing this section. I just went ahead and put it into the prose to avoid a WP:EASTEREGG situation. Do you recall which source mentions this? I'll cite it in the article if possible. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good call! The fact is mentioned in the lead of the Caproni Ca.309 article, with a reference to boot. ☔

  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Trips to Wales

• Image caption needs a reference

  Done —TS

• the beginning stages → early stages

  Done —TS

• way of life, and the hard-working" — remove comma

  Done —TS

• As animation scholar Helen McCarthy writes, → Animation scholar Helen McCarthy wrote,

  Done —TS

Production

• First sentence feels out of place here

Agreed,   removed —TS

• Dashes need changing in the first paragraph per above
• the film also use a combination → the film use a combination

  Done —TS

• Miyazaki states → Miyazaki stated

  Done —TS

• $8 million → {{USD|8 million}}

  Question: All of the currency figures in this article use templates as far as I know; am I missing something here? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised I didn't notice that! In that case, the parameter |long=no should be removed from each of the templates to clarify the currency in question. ☔

Fair enough.   Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I would really love to see more information about the core production of the film, but I understand that is unlikely, especially considering when, where, and by whom it was made

Yeah, I'm also a little unsatisfied with the content of this section. Unfortunately, no source I could find described the film's production in any more detail than this. —TS

The roles of nature and technology

• Critics also note → Critics note

  Done —TS

• the castle, as while Laputa → the castle; while Laputa

  Done —TS

• and Cavallaro, that → and Cavallaro that

  Done —TS

• Capitalisation does not need to be precisely maintained per MOS:CONFORM, but it's fine either way so I'll leave this up to you
  • that "We are not → that "we are not (or that "[w]e are not)
  • argues that "This is not" → argues that "this is not (or argues that "[t]his is not)
  • conclude that "Technology → conclude that "technology (or conclude that "[t]echnology)
  • There are more examples elsewhere in the article, but I won't exhaustively list them all

I'll do another pass of the article and change them to lowercase without square brackets. —TS

  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• by default, and only → by default and only

  Done —TS

Innocence of children

• While relevant, I'm not sure that the sentence about Future Boy Conan is especially important in this setting

I find the quote relevant, as you said, and a fun little quirk from the Starting Point interviews. I feel like it's also provides insight into Miyazaki's thoughts when writing young characters. Let me know if you would still like it removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's fine; it's pretty harmless—and you're right, it gives extra context to his thoughts. ☔

• Image caption needs a reference

  Done and slightly rephrased. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• VanderMeer and Chambers might need introducing, especially since the phrasing makes them seem like characters in the film alongside Pazu

Whoops, I had accidentally introduced them in the Legacy section and not here.   Done —TS

I figured this was the case! ☔

• Cavallaro also writes → Cavallaro writes

  Done —TS

• a view has since been replaced → a view that has since been replaced

  Done —TS

• Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is a duplicate link
• $157 million → {{USD|157 million}}

See my question about the currency templates above. —TS

• home video and soundtrack → home video, and soundtrack

Love to see that serial comma!   Done —TS

• eighth best-selling → eighth-best-selling, I think

I'm also unsure, but it seems right to me, looking at it. I couldn't find anything about ordinal numbers in MOS:HYPHEN.   Done —TS

• $6.2 million → {{USD|6.2 million}}

As above. —TS

English dubs

• then-brand-new → then-new

  Done —TS

• this dub also briefly aired → this dub briefly aired

  Done —TS

• My Neighbor Totoro and Princess Mononoke are duplicate links

  Done —TS

• Kiki and → Kiki's Delivery Service and

  Sure —TS

• Change the dashes per above (parentheses may also work)
• Clarify when the film was added to Netflix (and perhaps that it wasn't/isn't available in the U.S.)

  Done. While the restriction of Ghibli films in North America and Japan is annoying, it might be straying too far from the focus of this article to mention it. —TS

I think you're right—Japan might be worth mentioning, but ultimately the specific regions of digital distribution of a then-34-year-old film isn't particularly important. ☔

• Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, Disney, and Buena Vista are duplicate links

  Done —TS

• Another em dash that needs changing per above
• Link compact disc

  Done —TS

• Miyazaki himself has approved of Hisaishi's reworking — unless I'm missing something, I don't think this is really mentioned in the source; perhaps consider mentioning what Miyazaki said to Hisaishi instead

  Removed. I think I cited the wrong source here, but I couldn't figure out which other source it's supposed to be. —TS

I think I found it—it was probably meant to be this source, which has a very similar name. If you decide to restore the original sentence with this source, I would add something like According to Hisaishi, for clarity. Interestingly, Hisaishi's account is apparently somewhat contradicted by Steve Alpert in his book, and he gave more information on Reddit, but I'm not sure if any of that is worth including. I'll leave it to you. ☔

• Remove periods from the two "Notes" in the table

  Done —TS

Critical responses

• Critical responses → Critical response or Critical reception per MOS:FILMCRITICS

  Done —TS

• Animage, Princess Mononoke, and Disney are duplicate links

  Done —TS

• the Japanese magazine Animage → Animage

  Done —TS

• Ranking 44th is impressive, but without any context it feels like a random listicle mention — did the magazine say anything specific about the film?

I don't know whether any commentary was provided along with the list, as the information is secondhand coming from ANN. Willing to remove this if it feels a little out-of-context. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• "100 Best Anime Productions of All Time" — this isn't mentioned in the source; is it the original name of the list?

Not sure where this came from.   Rephrased —TS

• Combine the last two sentences of the first paragraph, probably with and

  Done —TS

• I understand the intention of the second and third paragraphs' opening sentences, but they read a little awkwardly
  • Consider dropping the film was reviewed by news publications there and combining the first two sentences

      Done —TS

  • Considering dropping the first sentence of the third paragraph, and changing about Disney's dub → about Disney's 2003 dub

      Done —TS

• AV Club → The A.V. Club

  Done —TS

• I'd really like to see more information from reviews—did they say anything specific about the characters, story, art style? It would be great to see a paragraph for each of these, as described at WP:CRS. At present, it reads like a collection of quotes summarising each review

  Rewritten —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Audience responses

• Audience responses → Audience response or Audience reception per MOS:FILMAUDIENCE

  Done —TS

• Animage and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind are duplicate links

  Done —TS

• Laputa was rated the third-best → the film was rated the third-best

  Done —TS

Accolades

• I think this information would be better summarised in prose instead of a table

In progress —TS

@Rhain: Coming back to this a little later I'm not sure that prose would be any better than a list here. All of the sources in this section merely mention which award the film received, without any additional commentary or further information. Converting this into prose would just boil down to finding a half-dozen different ways of writing "The film received X award in 1986." —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's fair enough; I personally prefer to avoid sections that only consist of a table, but I respect that you want to avoid repetition. ☔

• Consider adding a {{See also}} link to List of accolades received by Hayao Miyazaki

  Question: Is it normal to link to lists of a director's awards in the Accolades section of one of their films? It seems a bit out-of-place to me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, this needn't be included, especially since there are more accolades listed here than on the Miyazaki list. ☔

• The image caption needs a period and a reference

  Question: The caption for Lasseter is discussed in more detail lower down in the section. Do we still need a citation? Added the period. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, image captions require referencing per WP:WHYCITE. You can just use the same reference as prose, though. ☔

  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Steampunk and Neon Genesis Evangelion are duplicate links

  Done —TS

• Laputa is considered a "classic" work either needs more references or the names of the book authors

Could you clarify what you mean by this? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I should have specified. Either the sentence should clarify who considers the film a "classic", or it should have additional references to support the claim. One reference isn't really enough for it to be "considered" a classic unless that reference is named in prose. ☔

  Done and slightly rephrased. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• The sentences about Ghost in the Shell and Your Name directors could be merged

Ah, it's a shame to break up the perfect chronological order, but it makes sense to combine those two.   Done —TS

• Jeff VanderMeer and SJ Chambers, authors of The Steampunk Bible, → The Steampunk Bible authors Jeff VanderMeer and SJ Chambers

Moved their introduction further up the article, so this is redundant. —TS

• has often cited Miyazaki → often cited Miyazaki

  Done —TS

• Link WALL·E (character) somewhere in the third paragraph's last sentence

  Question: Is this necessary considering there's already a link to the article for the film? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be useful considering the protagonist is being discussed specifically. I'd recommend piping the link as the protagonist. ☔

  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Clarify who Macek was, in relation to Streamline

  Done —TS

• Macek has stated → Macek stated

  Done —TS

• Italicise Laputa: The Flying Island

  Done —TS

• Remove the last sentence; connecting that incident to this feels like WP:SYNTH, and infamous feels out-of-place and unsourced

Agreed,   done —TS

• Ref numbers from this revision
• Are the page numbers for reference 6 (Miyazaki 1996, pp. 8–9) correct?

Good catch! I meant to cite The Art of Laputa (Miyazaki 2016).   Fixed —TS

• Instead of separating sources with semicolons (e.g., ref 31, 33, 41), I would recommend splitting them into separate references instead

The semicolons are just how the {{sfnm}} template renders. I actually intentionally bundled these citations as they were cramping the text in places — I'm not a huge fan of seeing three citation superscripts in a row. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to keep these the way they are. —TS

Of course; there's nothing wrong with the current method, so I'm fine with it. ☔

• Remove Hisaishi, Joe, cited in from ref 77, and Oshii, Mamoru, cited in from ref 98

I was following WP:SAYWHERE with these. Willing to remove them if you still think they're redundant. —TS

I think they're a little redundant since the original Hisaishi and Oshii sources aren't cited further below. The way it is done elsewhere (refs 1, 36, 39, 48, etc.) is great, as both sources are linked/cited. ☔

  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Ref 96 appears to mention the wrong page (182) — I think it should be 190

I don't actually have the source with me at the moment, but I trust you've got it covered.   Fixed —TS

For reference, I looked at the Google Books version, which is linked in the article. ☔

• For references without a date (e.g., refs 61, 62, 65, 87, 88, 92, 94), it's best to omit the year entirely, rather than naming the current year
  • For example, refs 87 and 88 should be Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, not Rotten Tomatoes 2023 and Metacritic 2023

    Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is a limitation of the {{sfn}} template. All citations need an associated date for disambiguation purposes. —TS

You can manually override this using {{harvid}}—instead of |ref={{harvid|Rotten Tomatoes|2023}}, you could use |ref={{harvid|Rotten Tomatoes}}. You can see this in action on the last reference at Hayao Miyazaki. ☔

Good to know! This solution is never mentioned in the documentation, so that's what had me confused. But if it works, it works.   Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Twitter 2013 → Twitter Engineering 2013

  Done —TS

• Add |url-status=live to Bertoli 2017, Brzeski 2014, Frater 2014, IGN 2003, Nausicaa.net 2023b, Rose 2016, Rosen 2013, Savov 2011, Stimson 2014, and Suzuki 1996

  Done —TS

• Add an |archive-url= to Box Office Mojo 2023, Green 2012, and Rowe 2023

  Done —TS

• I've seen recent FACs mention that all ref titles should conform to the same case style (title- or sentence-case) per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, but that's more for FAC than GAN (and I've never done it before) so it's entirely up to you—just a heads-up in case you take this to FAC

I will certainly keep it in mind, but this seems like a bit more busywork than I'm feeling up to today XD —TS

• File:Mayumi Tanaka 2023.jpg, File:Mark Hamill (2017).jpg, File:Caer 2.jpg, File:Big Pit National Coal Museum, Blaenavon, Wales June 12, 2015 (49526156446).jpg, File:Laputa Castle in the Sky robot at Ghibli Museum.jpg, File:HayaoMiyazakiCCJuly09.jpg, File:Isao Takahata (cropped).jpg, File:Joe Hisaishi 2011.jpg, and File:John Lasseter 2002.jpg are all free images on Commons
• File:Castle in the Sky (1986).png is the film's official poster and has an appropriate fair use rationale; I have corrected its resolution per WP:IMAGERES
• File:Laputa Castle in the Sky, screencap 2.jpg is a non-free film screenshot with an appropriate fair use rationale, and is used appropriately in the article

I've wanted to write articles about film for some time, and it's articles like this that make me want to do so. What a fantastic read! The "Themes" section is a particular highlight. Upon reflection, I can see the number of comments above may be disheartening or daunting, but I assure you they're almost all nitpicky and outside GA scope—most are personal suggestions that you're welcome to disagree with, and anything written like this is purely a personal suggestion that can be safely ignored without impacting the review. I like when reviewers are thorough so I try to do the same, but I apologise if it's excessive.

This is really great work and you should be proud of it. I'm putting it on hold for now, but it's barely a hop, skip, and a jump to earning GA! Please feel free to voice any questions or concerns below (or above). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Rhain: Thank you very much for an excellent GA review — it is very thorough, very attentive to detail, and beautifully formatted to boot! Please don't apologize for the depth of your comments, it only goes to show the commitment you have to a high standard of content on this website; keep it up. I appreciate your openness to considering my comments, especially the edit summary on one of your replies — it all contributes to a really productive collaboration on this article. What a nice experience for my very first GAN! I'm still working through your comments and should have them all addressed by tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for all your hard work, TechnoSquirrel69! I'm glad you appreciate my thoroughness. You seem to have addressed most of my notes above; I only have a few more, mostly minor:

• The image caption in § Themes needs referencing

  Done —TS

• In § Accolades, Award (table header) → Award / Publication (or Award / publication), or something similar

  Done —TS

• Is there a particular reason the Result column is blank for the last two awards?

Those two are a little different from the others as they aren't a category at an awards event, but simply some kind of recognition from an organization. I thought it would be a little weird to report the film "winning" a recommendation from a children's welfare committee. —TS

That seems logical. Personally, I would either add {{Won}} to the table or move those two awards to prose, but it's fine either way. ☔

• The only outstanding comment from above is the final one in Critical response—any updates or thoughts?

I'm working on a partial rewrite of the section in my sandbox; I'll try to wrap it up today. —TS

As usual, please feel free to respond above or below. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Rhain: Replied in line above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again! This looks great; § Critical response is structured really well. I would note that aggregator scores are typically placed at the top of the section, but this film was released before those websites existed so their current placement is logical too.

That's it from me! As I said before, this article was basically in GA shape before I started, so I appreciate your patience and hard work in addressing all of my nitpicking. I'll do some minor housekeeping on my way out, but this is all yours:  .

Congratulations, you should be proud of your work! (And don't forget that the article will be eligible for DYK for the next seven days, if you're interested.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply