# Talk:Dareka no Manazashi

Some sources for reviews and announcements from English sites.

ANN [1],[2]
Crunchyroll [3]
Capsule Computers (australia) [4]
Fandom Post (Chris Beveridge) [5]
Anicom UK (school anime club) [6]
UK Anime Network: [7]
Anime Shinbun (anime social news site/maybe non-RS): [8]
Otaku's Study (blog site, maybe non-RS): [9]
UK Anifest / Toymation (some company that has a booth at the cons): [10]
Some might be borderline RS but others come from the usual RS sites: -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources!  Unfortunately, the content of several was redundant with existing refs, though I did use the one from Crunchyroll because it's so widely known.  One of the ANN links was already used, but I had completely missed the other (but now added).  I'm hoping Otaku's Study is an okay source because it had some valuable information about the YouTube stream.  Others felt too much like informal blogs, and honestly, didn't have much to offer.  I am still desperately seeking translation help with Shinkai's website as well as thoughts on the reliability of the Geekenstein review, which I think is peer-reviewed. – Maky « talk » 21:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright... I've used all the sources I felt were (at least somewhat) reliable.  I also created a "Reception" section with the Geekenstein review, as well as comments from other sites.  Feel free to copyedit as needed.  Once I get Shinkai's website translated (hopefully soon), I will submit it to GAN... and possibly FAC (if no other Japanese sources can be found). – Maky « talk » 02:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is able to help translate from Japanese to English, I could use some help with the following sources:

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
I believe all of these are reliable sources.  Once these are translated and the material added (with proper citations), I will try to submit the article to FAC. – Maky « talk » 05:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)   

There is not a lot in most of these. Some of them talk about Kazusa and it looks like you did not add a reference specifically about her, so I will add one right now. Otherwise, the reviews have too much of brevity. They just say "I cried when I watched it" or "people on the Internet (probably people making comments on Shinkai's website mostly) said ‛I cried when I watched it.’" I mean, there is more stuff, and I will add that later or post about it here since I will need help with some, but that was most of it. It is great and important to add what people in _Japan_ had to say, which I think is what you are saying in your comment but sometimes that is hard ´□` Don't give up, we will look for more! ServanteDeFeu (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@ServanteDeFeu: Thank you very much.  It doesn't surprise me that the articles don't provide much.  I couldn't even be sure that they were reliable sources for anime/manga.  If you find other Japanese sources, please let me know.  Also, can you provide a translation of the website title for the reference you added (using the "trans_title" parameter)?
Most importantly, could you please translate Shinkai's official website for this anime?  I suspect there are some important details there that I can't access, particularly about production and the cast.  For example, I'd like to do a better job matching voice actors to roles, but couldn't do it using Google Translate.  – Maky « talk » 08:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
These are all reliable sources, don't worry; of course, Shinkai's website is a primary source. One of the things Shinkai's official website has is a list of the cast, and you can easily see (with Google Translate and matching kanji) that is confirms the listings given on non-RS sites like ANN's encyclopedia: Hirano is Mii, Hanamura is Aya Okamura, and Ogawa is Kōji Okamura. So, shouldn't these be placed in the plot section by their characters? —innotata 16:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I was going to put them in the production section.  I've already got voice actors listed there, but I don't have the kanji.  I'm glad you were able to make sense of the Google translation.  On my screen, it jumbled it quite a bit and it didn't make sense.  In fact, I'm finding that Google Translate is almost completely useless for Japanese... at least for me.  But please help me be clear on this... Shinkai's page officially states that Hirano is the narrator and the narration is done from the perspective of Mii?  – Maky « talk » 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it just credits Hirano as "narration". With a bit of fiddling, you can get basic information from Google Translate pretty easy ;) Try copying text and pasting it into translate.google.com instead of translating the webpage, for example. —innotata 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.  Unfortunately that doesn't always work.  In this case, I already tried that and there was little to no difference. – Maky « talk » 02:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Btw, unless something can be found on a Japanese review, I don't think we'll have a source for the narrator of the story.  Only one I know of mentions the cat, and it's not considered a RS.  My initial thought was that it's the mother, and that the story was being told from a perspective further into the future.  However, I'm pretty sure it was the cat since the narrator says that s/he wished they could have seen the girl one last time, which immediately preceded news of the cat's death.  An anonymous edit today said it was the deceased mother, but the mother visits the daughter and father at the end of the film.  Anyway, we may just be better off removing mention of who the narrator is unless a Japanese source tells us. – Maky « talk » 03:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the narrator. I am pretty sure it was not the mother, and I guess that means it has to be the cat, personally. Actually one of the sources you use, Geekstein, says it was the mother, they seem wrong and too bad for them. PS I agree you can get Google Translate to work for you, I use it for Chinese and specialized Japanese writing. ServanteDeFeu (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, ServanteDeFeu, is there any way to maybe pick a few of the best of these sources and turn them into a 1- or 2-sentence statement about Japanese reactions to the film for the Reception section?  – Maky « talk » 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I am working on it, using [20][21][22]. One unexpected problem is that almost all the online comments that are quoted are in Kansai-ben!! A bit wierd, huh? Maybe because Kazusa is from Kyoto? ServanteDeFeu (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK! Here's a translation of Shinkai's little statement on his official site:

Nomura Real Estate Group, as part of its “Proud Box Appreciation Festival”, gave me the opportunity to create this work as a theatrical release. It is about 6 minutes, 40 seconds long. The challenge of this piece lay in finding a way to talk about grand themes of “future” and “ties between family members”, in a short and entertaining animation. The key to the expression of this work was the “speaking (narration)” provided by Hirano Fumi-san. The narration was not prolonged by exposition and psychological explanations, but served as the structural framework around which I tried to build the piece. Through the synergy of the singer Kazusa’s beautiful theme song and the skill of the animation staff, a short work was made that my thought was, one could enjoy watching many times.

Kanshasai literally means “celebration for giving thanks”—it’s the word used by Japanese to translate the American and Canadian “Thanksgiving” (Happy Thanksgiving by the way. Working in America, I get a nice long break now). For future, he uses the word mirai. Well, what else would he use, it’s the main word for the future in Japan. However, I guess it literally means “has not come”, as I learned from (of course) a Sinologist[23]. I don’t really know how to translate what he calls Hirano’s role, but it’s followed by “narration” in parenths. Apart from this, there's just the cast and staff list, airing info we already got, and comments. That's it for today, ServanteDeFeu (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!  (And Happy Thanksgiving!)  I will work on trying to add this material as soon as I manage to pull my head out of the numerous reviews for The Garden of Words.  It's too bad the part about Hirano's narration was difficult to understand.  I was hoping it might shed some light on the narrator's identity.  So is this saying that the narration was recorded first, then the animation built around it? – Maky « talk » 08:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nina. Y'know, Maky, that's kinda how animation is done, voices are recorded before the animating starts. Animators will often make changes after voice recording; maybe Shinkai is implying he was particularly liberal with that in this case. Clearly we aren't getting help on the narrator's identity here, although I'm pretty sure the narrator represents Mii-san, maybe Shinkai intended to leave it ambiguous? —innotata 08:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the narrator's identity is intended to be ambiguous... just as the fate of her mother isn't uncertain either.  The story (like most of Shinkai's works) is subtle, but the hints are pretty direct.  (For example, Aya expecting her mother when the doorbell rings or the narrator saying she wishes she could have seen Aya one last time... immediately before we learn of the cat's death.)  Unfortunately since so many people (reviewers and readers) seem to be missing the nuances, spelling out what should be fairly obvious counts as OR.  As for the timing of voice acting and animation production, I meant to ask if the former had taken place even before the storyboards were done.  I know that when animation starts, they already have the voice acting done.  But from what I've seen, storyboards work with preliminary script readings only, not the finished voice work. – Maky « talk » 09:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, he doesn't specify in this short statement. —innotata 17:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that there will be quite a few contentions about the fate of Aya's mother and the identity of the narrator, so let's discuss it here.
Starting with the narrator, there doesn't appear to be any official sites declaring the narrator's identity, though I've seen some reviews and user-generated encyclopedias make speculations.  All seem to agree that it's either the cat or the mother.  I could make a case for it being the cat (though I once thought it was the mother as well), but the fact remains that the narrator is not officially identified, so the article should not attempt to do so... unfortunately.  Maybe someone could post on Shinkai's official website asking him to reveal the narrator's identity...
As for the mother, the film does not say anything about the state of her relationship with the father, but it does indicate that she comes back to visit at the end of the film.  When the doorbell rings, Aya says: "Is that Mom?  Coming!"  I think it's pretty clear that Aya and her father are expecting her—leading to the reunion of the family and the renewal of their happiness.  (The narrator follows with: "Still, you're well aware that true happiness will be truly long-lasting.")
If anyone has any conflicting views with supporting sources, please share them.  – Maky « talk » 16:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, I agree. Seems like it is the cat. However, some of the English language review you use say it was the mother, oh well, theyre probably wrong. ServanteDeFeu (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, your guess that the credits specify who the narrator is would be correct, and they credit Fumi Hirano as Mii. lol, should have checked first >.< ServanteDeFeu (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for finding it! – Maky « talk » 07:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The German source that claims that Dareka no Manazashi aired at the Gold Coast Film Festival with The Garden of Words is wrong.  I thought it strange that only a single non-English or Japanese source would make the claim and no others, especially given the detailed news record of the various screenings and the heavy coverage of the GCFF event.  To confirm my suspicions of the error, I wrote to the GCFF staff and received a reply from the program manager, Mitch Ziems, confirming that Dareka no Manazashi did not play at the event. – Maky « talk » 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Maky did a pretty good revamp on it and nominated it for GA in October 2014. I've wanted to review it but I didn't because I've thought it would be a pitty to quick fail it only due to one reason: the sources. While I know it's difficult to find sources for some stuff it would be good to clarify why some sources are reliable. It's your burden, Maky. Some sources I'd challenge are frikisreconocidos.com, animeemanga.it, otakustudy.com, geekenstein.com, ukanifest.co.uk, and anicom.co.uk. Frikis, animeemanga and geek's staff pages (here, here and here) doesn't contain any substantial information on their credentials... and does otaku has a staff or an about page? I'm not sure being affiliated with Teesside University is enough to make anicom reliable... UKAnifest's about says it is a film festival (which is by itself remarkable?) created by Toymation and there's some coverage by WP:A&M/RS on it ([24], [25]). Their team's "Aisha Anime" has interviewed well-known voice actors, for what it's worth. Well, UKAniFest has a little spark of chance but I'm not confident... What can you say? Ps: It would be good to check some The Garden of Words's sources as well. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's my burden... especially when I didn't get many replies at WikiProject Anime and manga when I posted questions about these sources.  Given the minimal input, much of which favored the inclusion of these sources, I did my own vetting—looking to see if the website had official editors or acted as news sites, etc.  (I also considered whether or not they wrote knowledgeable about the topic and presented factually correct information.) I know we have a list of "approved" reliable sources (some of which are dead links or simply useless), but they were approved because people discussed them.  I tried to discuss them, but most people had better things to do.  And, again, the few replies I got were mostly supportive.
Just to show my efforts to vet these sources weren't as half-assed as you as you make it sound, consider the topic at the talk of this talk page, plus the following:
Template:Did you know_nominations/The Garden of Words—see second reply to Cloud668
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#Dareka no Manazashi
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#Source review for a DYK nom
Anyway, I'll try to make time tomorrow to address specific references concerns.  Today I've been battling a failed hard drive.  Now that my computer's back up, I need a little sleep before work tomorrow morning. – Maky « talk » 09:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sincerely, I hope it pass and maybe we can expand the project's number of RS, which is quite embarassing compared to say video games (WP:VG/RS), which is another niche market... And I know how frustrating is to find sources for A&M... but I'm just playing devil's advocate because it's necessary to someone to do it... No one wanted to do it before when you asked the project so I am doing it now... Just it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate more in-depth feedback. Let me start by saying that I'm not sure how to address the issue of "credentials"—In reviewing entertainment material, it seems like on even the most respected websites, simply being prolific (writing lots of reviews) gives people more credibility. So I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Let me address each of the sources you questioned individually:
frikisreconocidos.com – Only Spanish site that I know of that covers anime and it has a team of editors. (Yes, their staff page isn't too serious, but I don't care about that. Some of the staff pages on Anime News Network aren't very serious either, if I recall.) For this article, I just cited it for the news element to demonstrate comprehensiveness—something I'll need for FAC. As a news source, I don't see how it differs from Anime News Network or Crunchyroll. It's obvious that all of them are just translating official Japanese news channels and not citing their sources.  After all, they all say the same thing, more or less.  If anything, one site may translate just a tad bit more, and that may prove crucial for comprehensiveness.  In this case, the ref is redundant, so I don't mind taking it out... as long as the people at FAC won't later ask me why I didn't reference it after they do their own web search to check comprehensiveness.
animeemanga.it – Same points as frikisreconocidos.com, except that it's Italian. Again, only used it as news source, demonstrating that it was also aired with The Garden of Words in Italy. No English sources will note what happens in Italy, yet the material I cite from here conveys a trend in this anime's screening.  I'm not citing material about production details or translated interviews with Shinkai here.
otakustudy.com – Yes, it's a one-man operation, but as ChrisGualtieri pointed out regarding this source, sometimes it offers reliable information.  In this case in particular, it is the *only* source that mentions finer details about the YouTube release, particularly when it was uploaded (vs. shared), when it was taken down (unofficially), and the usage data.
geekenstein.com – This site I strongly feel belongs in the list of reliable sources for WikiProject Anime and manga.  The news element is consistent and reliable, and the reviews are some of the best I've seen.  They also seem to cover some of the lesser noted anime.  I'm not sure what your expectations were for the staff page, but it's obviously got a team of editors.
ukanifest.co.uk – I'm not sure what the problem is with this one. Here is its staff page. It has support from a retailer in the field, and in this case, it's quite obvious that they can't benefit financially from its short overview of this anime. I guess I don't understand what makes one such source reliable and another not in cases like this. Is it a popularity contest? If everyone else around the web cites you, then you're reliable? I'm not trying to be sarcastic—I sincerely want to understand the expectations.
anicom.co.uk – I kind of understand the concern on this one, since any university group could set up a website and review anime. But again, they have staff who seem to be assigned to review anime, so therefore I'm assuming the work is edited. Would I favor using their reviews for a large-scale production if plenty of more reputable reviews were available? Probably not. But given that the author is translating his own sources, making the same claims as the more reliable sources, I'm fine with it. Admittedly the review does make one error by claiming that the narration comes "from the mother's perspective". But in all fairness, even the reliable sources got that one wrong, too.
Btw, you didn't inquire about ASCII.jp, RocketNews24, or IID Inc., none of which are mentioned on WP:A&M/RS but are all Japanese sources. Do Japanese sources get a free pass?
Also, once we finish this discussion, if you don't mind carrying your critique over to The Garden of Words, I'd appreciate it. There are a few sources there that I feel need discussion, but again, I kept them and used them because I felt that they ultimately checked out for various reasons (much like those given above). – Maky « talk » 07:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm, for "If everyone else around the web cites you, then you're reliable?" It's a good starting point. It's like academic sources or books. If they have valuable information, they'll be probably cited by other. For the Japanese sources, no, they don't get a free pass but ASCII is a well-know corporation, and animeanime.jp (IID) and Rocketnews24 are sites that I've already known... Both are highly used used as sources (see it for animeanime.jp and see "RocketNews24 Japan Facts and Figures"). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... given that all English sources simply translate the Japanese sources, I can't see a reason why anyone would branch out and look for new sources. And when the popular sources don't waste their time with smaller anime, we get stuck where we're at here.  Anyway, somewhat unlike academic sources, the sources here also have marketing aspects to their popularity.  If a website isn't trendy, it may not become popular, regardless of the quality of the information.  I don't know... I still have a hard time with that concept.
As for the sources discussed above, I'm willing to concede frikisreconocidos.com and anicom.co.uk.  If you want, I'll remove them.  But do you think we could get some more feedback about the others?  Should I try to discuss it at WikiProject Anime and manga again?  – Maky « talk » 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not me. It's just common sense... I mean, for example, a Time's article is highly sourced because other sources know it's a good source. It's like at academy: Marx is cited because he is a good source; Gabriel Yuji, on the other hand...
Hm, I'm not trying to have any source removed or anything... I was just being cautelous—which IIRC FAC reviewers are extremely. I'll not say you shouldn't but I'm not sure you'll get a response... I have the A&M talkpage as well as several A&M in my watchlist, and while there plenty of editors editing A&M, a few are participative... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply.  I appreciate your cautiousness, but I felt a compromise was in order.  You're not the only one who's going to object to those sources, and though I feel they merit inclusion, there are some very hard-headed people on Wikipedia who won't be so accepting.  Anyway, I'll post the question (yet again) at the A&M talk page.  I'm about to post my next FAC (another lemur article), and after that, this article will probably be next. That gives people about a month to resolve any issues.  In the meantime, I'd appreciate your thoughts on The Garden of Words and its sources.  I know it uses some of the same websites (which we probably don't need to discuss further unless you have points you want to address), but it also uses other sources which wouldn't surprise me if I see objections to.  (Beneath the Tangles, for instance, is one of them.  However, because of the quality of the thematic review on that site—and a lack of similar analysis elsewhere, including the "approved" sites—I'm going to put up a big fight to preserve it.)  Anyway, I would greatly value your feedback. – Maky « talk » 10:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I don't if you've already tried but maybe you have more luck with WP:RS/N. I'll definitely look at The Garden of Words. ;  Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dareka no Manazashi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this one. Should have this to you in a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like to be the bad guy... but I should point that some sources used in the article may not be reliable. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into that ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
"is a Japanese anime short film by Makoto Shinkai" - by? Shouldn't it be directed?
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
"though it also shown alongside Shinkai's film The Garden of Words during its Japanese premier on May 31, 2013" - is this relevant?
It was stressed in the news articles about the film. It was treated as a special opportunity to view two new Shinkai short films back-to-back, and the tendency to show these films together continued with some film festivals. In fact, I had never heard of this short film until someone asked on the talk page for The Garden of Words why this redirected there.  I looked into it, learned that this "sister film" was commonly shown with it, and then launched into writing this article.  If it's too minor of a point, it can be removed... but see my point below, where you talk about the length of the lead. – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I see, thanks for explaining! I was just wondering if it was meant to be there in the lead, but I'm sure it's fine there nevertheless. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"It was later posted on YouTube from September 2013 to January 2014" - is this essential to include in the lead section? Let alone the first paragraph?
Given that the film is generally not available on DVD/BD in most regions, and that this was considered it's primary method of distribution, I would argue yes. – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and occasionally YouTube can be accepted as a reliable source given that the publisher is official ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and could summarise the article better. I would recommend an expansion of the second paragraph to mention more on what critics thought about it. Also, the lead should try to mention a small amount of every section, allowing it to act as a "mini article"
I completely agree, and that's how I write my leads.  I will add more about the critique shortly, once the RS discussion concludes.  If most of those "questionable" sources disappear, then there probably won't be much of a "Reception" section to summarize.  I am a little confused by your comments, though.  You ask that I include a small amount of information from each section, but above you questioned whether some of the key points from the "Release" section were relevant enough for the lead. If you want more on the plot, I can try to expand it... though I typically condense the story to its most basic elements for the lead... which on a ~7-minute film about a very simple topic leads to what you see here. I do see a few minor points that could be summarized, based on additions from Japanese source materials from my co-author and translator. So aside from a small amount of production information I'm adding, the release info is covered, and reception info will be added if it survives. Anything else? – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again! I think the plot part is fine, and you did a good job on expanding the article as it is. It's an accomplishment to make the most out of a short film as it is. I also agree with you regarding that the plot should be condensed for the basic elements ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Set in the not-too-distant future" - WP:WEASEL words! Can this be reworded to something like just Set in the future or middle 21st century so on?
How about Set in the near future?  I've tried that.  Anyway, never thought of that as a type of weasel word.  Interesting. – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Infobox people need a reference (though personally I don't think it's essential, but the majority of reviewers disagree)
Interesting... Aside from Shinkai, the only person mentioned is Akihisa Matsuura, and that's cited in the body.  I also treat the infobox like the lead—it only summarizes info from the article, but if something there is not covered or controversial, then a citation is required.  In fact, I see a lot of film articles come to FAC from GAN without citations in the infobox, and most of the time the material in the infobox isn't even mentioned in the body.  Anyway, the people who participated in the film will be in the film's credits.  Still want them? – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It's OK, I'll leave it up to you? I actually don't mind, and I hope people won't think that I'm too 'laid back' but I don't mind if there are citations in the infobox or not. It's just that some reviewers prefer them, but I think it's alright ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"It was originally scheduled to be taken down on January 12, 2014, but remained available until January 21" - why was it taken down? Copyright reasons? And if this has to be in the lead, it didn't mention why it was taken down?
The sources didn't explicitly state it, if I recall.  Basically CoMix Wave Films announced that it would be on YouTube for a while, and then took it down. I guess it was considered a limited screening, but nothing came out and said that officially.  As for the two dates, the official source made one claim, but another sourced noted that it was still up past that date. – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


#### References
No dead links
Thanks for checking. I always archive my sources. – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of a question of unreliable references on the talk page. I think the UKAniFest reference is alright, since it's a festival and all, and the instances from the talk page include frikisreconocidos.com, animeemanga.it, otakustudy.com, geekenstein.com, ukanifest.co.uk, and anicom.co.uk appear to be removed. I'm not so well versed in the reliability of film refs compared to VG refs, so I think it's reassuring that these have been removed.
I'm not very well versed myself.  As you've seen on the talk page, my questions about refs are rarely answered, and I've learned that if one established person in the related Wikiproject strongly objects, another established person will support and add the ref back.  Not only that, but across all entertainment articles, opinions about what's reliable and what's not vary so widely that questioning them rarely leads to article improvement. It's the reason why I prefer to write academic articles about lemurs and rarely bother with entertainment articles.  I understand overly strict policies about reliable refs for very popular entertainment items, but for others (like this short film), holding people to a several-year-old list of websites severely limits the coverage.  And then there's the topic of Japanese online sources... which sometimes seem to get a free pass on the vetting process (because so few people can translate them) and are considered "required" for consideration for FAC.  Like I said, I don't really get it. Anyway, please watch the discussion on the talk page. Hopefully we'll manage to work through the RS issue quickly. – Maky « talk » 05:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


### On hold
A solid article and with the right work it could stand a chance of passing. I'll leave this on hold for your for the standard seven days. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
Thank you for your detailed responses! I replied to most of them above and pretty much agreed with your input. Put simply, this article now meets the GA criteria. The references all check out, it is broad, comprehensive and overall well written. All the key factors of the GA criteria match, so I'll be happy to promote this  ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)