Jump to content

Talk:Spirited Away

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSpirited Away has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 2, 2013Good article nomineeListed
October 12, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 20, 2023.
Current status: Good article

About the plot summary again

[edit]

Hey 101.119.152.63, thanks for your additions to the article! Unfortunately, your changes to the plot summary take it over the 700-word limit recommended by WP:FILMPLOT. Would you be able to condense the content so it is once again below this threshold? TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

genre of the material viewed 49.146.42.170 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the plot is too long then I suggest reverting back further to a version that is shorter. -- 109.76.138.72 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Five paragraph long lead section also seems excessive. The WP:LEAD section is supposed to summarize. -- 109.76.138.72 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the reverts

[edit]

Hey Nyxaros, your rollback of the IP editor's changes was not appropriate. They had made good-faith contributions with descriptive edit summaries, which cannot be indiscriminately reverted as "vandalism". I've restored their edits for now, and I'd recommend that you have a discussion with them here if you disagree with them on any of the changes. Thanks! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next time read the article before writing responses like this. ภץאคгöร 06:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read through every diff; it seems they went back on their decision for the lead once, but their changes were constructive overall, and certainly not vandalism worthy of a rollback. I would still appreciate an explanation from you. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I've been considering this nomination for a while. This is a 2013 promotion that underwent a peer review in 2016. My most pressing concern is the failure of criterion 2b (reliable sources), with multiple self-published sources, primary sources, and other problematic material used. I've added inline or banner tags for all of these issues (though some of these have gone unresolved for over a year). I also doubt the article clears criterion 3a (addresses main aspects) with the number of high-quality scholarly sources left unused in § Further reading. Delist. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as one of the major contributors to the article, I've also notified the relevant WikiProjects of this reassessment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i concur, i'm surprised that the article doesn't even source napier's anime from akira to howl's moving castle. i see sources from travel websites and amazon (twice), and it seems as though the accolades section has been flagged as requiring attention for over a year. unless all of these issues are fixed quickly, i (regrettably) call to delist. Plifal (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this article can claim to meet current {{Good article}} standards when the Awards/Accolades table is not properly referenced. WP:VERIFY is fundamental. Unless there is an editor actively working to fix it soon then the article should be downgraded for failing to meet the necessary standard. -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive cleanup, thanks. (I would also recommend removing any Navbox for any awards that are no longer mentioned directly on this page. Relevance matters, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NAVBOX "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.") -- 109.77.194.73 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on § Accolades, EzrealChen! That section is now in much better shape. For the purposes of this reassessment, however, my !vote stays the same due to the other issues I mentioned in my nomination statement. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]