# Talk:Noriko Takaya


### Noriko Takaya
I have listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if the entire article meets the good article criteria.  As of January 5, 2025, it was graded as a B-Class article, but the article significantly changed since then.  I am wondering if there are errors, other than lint errors, we need to address before this can become a good article.
Thank you, Z. Patterson (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


#### Aoba47
Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review. I hope that these comments are helpful regardless:

I would avoid having citations in the lead for this type of article. The lead should provide an overview of the article, where everything is more fully discussed and cited, and while other types of articles benefit from having citations in the lead, whether it be to cite contested or controversial information or a quote or another purpose, I do not really see a need for this for fictional characters.
I also think the citations in the infobox are not fully necessary as this information should be present and cited in the article.
Some of the parameters in the infobox seem unnecessary to me. Things like hair and eye colors are not needed, and while I get that blood type is a big deal in Japan, it is not something that is usually included in a infobox for a fictional character.
I would put the Japanese name in a footnote, as it is done for articles like Jill Valentine, as it does take up quite a bit of space and is not fully necessary for readers. I think readers who are interested in this can access this via the endnote, and it can keep the prose moving from point to point better, at least in my opinion.
I do not think it is necessary to include the original Japanese names for things such as the Okinawa Girls' Space Pilot High School, big sister, space monster, and Gainax Pose, as they do not really add much for an English reader. They also seem a tad random.
The article currently uses two pieces of non-free media, with File:Noriko Takaya holding a jump rope.jpg and File:GunbusterSD.png. I would be mindful of non-free media usage, as it is encouraged to keep that to a minimal. While the purpose for the infobox image is clear, I am not entirely sure about the purpose for the second image, and that should be more clearly defined to justify its inclusion.
Make sure that items in the lead are also linked in the article on their first appearance, as the lead and the article are treated separately for this purpose. For instance, Gainax is not linked in the first instance in the article. On a side note, I would clarify in the prose that Gainax is the name of a studio, as I was uncertain about this when I first read it.
The "Characterization and themes" section has interesting information and citations, but it reads more like an essay than anything from Wikipedia. A lot of this information is presented in Wikipedia's voice instead of being more clearly attributed to the authors of the sources. Also, when discussing individuals like Tamaki Saitō and Hiroki Azuma, there should be a short descriptive phrase to clearly identify who they are. I do not the inclusion of the year (2011) after their names is particularly helpful or clear so I would remove that.
Why is there not a reception section? The article should discuss how critics responded to the character.
Citations in Japanese will need to have an English translation.
I know that editors have different opinions on this, but I would avoid using theses, as in my opinion, the level of editorial oversight varies so wildly. Theses and dissertations are generally not considered reliable according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
I hope these comments are helpful. Based on my very quick look at the article, I do think that it would need more work prior to a GAN review. That being said, since a GAN request has already been opened, this peer review should be closed, as according to the guidelines, a peer review should not be active at the same time as a GA nomination. Best of luck with your work on the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I understand.  Thank you.  I plan to make the changes you suggested. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, but as I have already said above, you should close this peer review as it should not be active while a GAN is open. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hello,
I am working my way through this article, cleaning up the prose and removing extraneous information. In the conception section I have some questions, namely, RSF:TWoH bombed at the box office. Then someone said it bombed because it didn't include a hot girl and a mech. And then Gainax made Gunbuster? Is my understanding of this sequence correct? the source for the second sentence says it was published in the 2000s but that could just be the English version or a later edition etc. and I don't have an easy way to view the source. I look forward to working with you to get this article up to a high quality. :) Moritoriko (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Moritoriko: You are understanding this sequence correctly.  I provided book sources in the article that goes through this.  The book Beautiful Fighting Girl talks about the conception of Gunbuster.  I appreciate your help. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment I used an ebook version of Beautiful Fighting Girl when I wrote this article. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I was able to read most of the parts of the book on google books except for the mentions of Gunbuster on pages 115-116. Is that the part where someone says that the reason RSF bombed is hot girl-less-ness?
So far what I can find in the sources is:
1. RSF bombs
2. Gainax makes Gunbuster
2.5. Gunbuster has hot girl-ness
3. Gunbuster does really well
What I am still looking for is someone to say out-right the reason for rsf bombing and the motivation making Gunbuster. Moritoriko (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Moritoriko: Yes, that is the part of Beautiful Fighting Girl that I referenced in this article. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Is that pages 115-116? If so, could you share it with me? Moritoriko (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Moritoriko: To quote the paragraph from Beautiful Fighting Girl, it reads as follows.
[Saitō has] already mentioned that Gunbuster was produced by Gainax in the wake of the box office failure of Wings of Honneamise. In its stoic pursuit of cinematic reality, Wings of Honneamise had excluded both the giant robot and the beautiful girl heroine that is the glory of anime. The despair and defiance that resulted from their understanding of how they had failed led the Gainax team to create a work that quickened and concentrated the anime context to an extreme degree. In so doing they demonstrated the true backbone of otaku creativity. In other words, it was a typical case of otaku-esque nihilism being converted into creative fervor.
At the planning stage, the focus may have been on the three subjects: a beautiful fighting girl, a giant robot, and a space monster. It may have been a matter of “Then all we have to do is cram it full of the kind of parody and detail that appeal to otaku, and it will sell fairly well.”
This is on Pages 167-168 of the ebook that I used.  The print version of Beautiful Fighting Girl may differ.
Also, I am curious as to why you are unlinking the first instance of will in the article when another term for will has a wikilink to Will (philosophy).  We should use wikilinks at items' first appearances.
Source: 

Z. Patterson (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that excerpt! That is exactly what I needed.
I was unlinking will because I don't think it is important for the understanding of will in this article. It is just the basic meaning of the word as used in English. Do you think that linking to the page about the usage of Will in philosophy is necessary for this article? Moritoriko (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Moritoriko: Perhaps you believe it is a common term per MOS:OVERLINK, but I understand where you are coming from. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I will keep working on this article as you do the things that the GAN noted but I will leave those tasks to you. I have also added some invisible comment questions for you (if you wrote those sections). Moritoriko (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@Moritoriko: I addressed your comments and edited the article based on how I could find reliable sources to answer the comments. Z. Patterson (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson Congrats on getting it to GA! I've done some more editing, let me know if you have any comments or questions because I did leave an awful lot of invisible comments in the article this time. I will be marking it complete in GOCE Moritoriko (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@Moritoriko: Thank you.  I addressed your comments in Special:Diff/1278483756.  In my opinion, Tamaki Saitō's statement about the term moeru enhances the article, as the source, Beautiful Fighting Girl, explains how Gunbuster influenced the development of moe.  Z. Patterson (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@Moritoriko: I think I clarified the sentence you had questions about in Special:Diff/1277850645. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
That clarified the unbiased portion :) Thanks.
Technically trying to round up sources isn't copy editing but I want what I write to match what the sources actually say ':D Moritoriko (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Moritoriko: I understand.  Thank you.  In the meantime, I have been looking through theses and trying to find scholarly sources (such as scholarly books and academic journals) that discuss the topics in the theses, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.  See the peer review results above. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Noriko Takaya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Z. Patterson (talk · contribs) 23:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Sorry in name of the project for the delay.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead
Wikilink anime
It feels too small for the length of the article. I recommend expanding it.
It's obvious but I recommend specifying what she uses the mecha for.
Add a note a bout the character's creation or voice actress in order to be a proper introduction at least in the second paragraph.
Conception
Since this is the first paragraph of the body, wikilink everything including Gainax and introduce concepts that might not have been explained like what is Gainax ("Studio Gainax")
Who are Tamaki Saitō and Hiroki Azuma. Repeat the proper introduction Anno
Since Noriko Hidaka is credited as one of the main factors behind the character I recommend moving her free image to conception alongside her content from reception.
Gunbuster
For a proper section, I recommend using "Appearances and then write Gunbuster and other appearances as subsections.
I would put emphasis on the fact we are talking about a fictional character. Start with, "The character of Noriko Takaya first appears in the anime...."
Years don't seem necessary.
Other appearances
I recommend removing the titles and to avoid so many subsection.
Characterization and themes
Everything seems well organized.
Reception
I recommend combining reception with cultural impact since it was pretty much how she was received by the world.
Remember to introduce the people you are writing.
That's all. Good work with the article. Once you deal with all these issues, remember to ping me so that I can gladly pass the review. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I made the changes you suggested.  I added wikilinks to many terms in the Conception section,  but I avoided linking common terms per MOS:OVERLINK. Z. Patterson (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Good work with the article. I'll be passing it.Tintor2 (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)