# Talk:Aniplex of America

The page cites this page: http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Aniplex-of-America-Inc-310-453-8506 as the source for Aniplex of America's revenue. According to Buzzfile.com, that number is an estimate and they give no source or rationale for reaching that estimate. Other information on that page is wildly innacurate, for example it cites 3 employees, when I personally know 5 employees and assume there are more. It also lists Hideki Goto as the president, when the president is Shu Nishimoto.
Buzzfile simply uses a one-size-fits-all algorhythm to judge revenue and number of employees for companies that don't publish those numbers.
As an example, they list Ellation Inc. with a revenue of $33 million per year and doing business as Crunchyroll. However crunchyroll has easilly verifable revenue in excess of $120 million / year (they have over 2 million subscribers all paying in excess of US$5.83 / month). Note: I am not estimating CR's revenue at US$120m. It's just saying that it's *at least* that much.
In short, Buzzfile.com is not a reputable source and the revenue estimate should be removed.  Tmpst (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This is late because I did not see your reply but you bring up a good point. I would like more input on this matter but I support removing the estimate entirely. Link20XX (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aniplex of America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article but it will start probably after Christmas. Looking forward to it. I only worked in two different companies article but this one seems well. Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Link20XX: Merry Christmas. I let the archive and citation bots check the sources of this article. Everything seems well written and sourced but there are some issues that might help to make GA:

Infobox
The 15 years ago seems unnecessary. Either remove it or simply write like "(15 years ago)" similar to real people's ages.
Lead
For the lead. While it might be unavoidable, I would suggest reducing the times we repeat the Aniplex word in the first paragraph. Try replacing some instances with "company" or "distribution enterprise".
Try mentioning in the lead one of the key people behind Aniplex. Maybe Asa Suehira seems the most appropiate.
Body
"At this point, Aniplex of America licensed its titles through other distributors, such as Funimation, Bandai Visual, Geneon, ADV Films, NIS America, and Media Blasters." Seems to be lacking a citation. Was it removed accidentally?
Similarly, avoid repeating the company's names. For example, in the second sentence from the first paragraph you can simply replace it with "It" or "They"
Catalog
English is quite a common wikilink so there is no need to have it.
Other than that, I think this article is in good state. Solve this issues, ping me and I'll check it again to pass it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Tintor2: I took the feedback given and used it to improve the article. It is now ready to be reassessed whenever you get the chance. Thanks for doing this review! I promise to hold my end of the deal. Link20XX (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Link20XX: On a second read, the article looks much better. I thought it would take longer but the prose is not that big while the free image passes the crtieria.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Tintor2 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the nature of the catalog, I think Template:Dynamic list would be useful, utilized here - but wanted to consult beforehand. Given they actively license new titles, this list requires frequent updates to maintain its accuracy as shows begin and end; are english dubbed; licenses expire; release dates shift; etc. Canadianerk (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)