# Talk:Daicon III and IV Opening Animations

Not really sure where to put this in the article:

"American fans enjoyed the film's broad parody, but its Japanese creators have fixed feelings. "They're a source of pride and something you want to strangle," said Yamaga, who is more interested in new projects. "I don't want to see them for a long time. Just thinking about them sends shivers down my spine," added Akai, saying that he wants to produce better films than the old ones."
From a Fanime panel: http://web.archive.org/web/20070707233248/www.fansview.com/2000a/022400d.htm (And there're also obviously a couple pages of in-depth information on their production and reception in the Notenki Memoirs.) --Gwern  (contribs) 23:45 29 November 2009 (GMT)

This review is transcluded from Talk:DAICON III and IV Opening Animations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) 03:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is well-written and seems to be able to get GA status. I see no major problems. However, you must adress some issues, and I will do some suggestions:

Replace ~5½ mins and ~6 mins to Approximately 5½ minutes and Approximately 6 minutes;
"sky toward earth". Earth must start with a capital letter;
How about to replace "The girl salutes and races away" for "The girl salutes and runs away"?;
"midair" must be rewritten as "mid-air";
"hurls it back at the mecha causing a huge explosion" => "hurls it back at the mecha, causing a huge explosion"
"and some Martian fighting machines from the 1953 War of the Worlds movie cross the background." War of the Worlds must be linked;
"She's then in a lightsaber duel" => "She is then in a lightsaber duel";
"duel with Darth Vader, with storm troopers". Stormtrooper (Star Wars) must be linked, and repeating "with" can be avoided;
"a xenomorph with mecha legs". Link xenomorph to Alien (creature in Alien franchise);
"armed with a Gundam style" => "armed with a Gundam-style";
"A host of machines and characters (Lord of the Rings, Conan, Narnia, others)". Italic: "A host of machines and characters (Lord of the Rings, Conan, Narnia, others)";
"Successive upheavals of the earth give birth". Earth again;
"Originally the productions were intended to be shot in 16 mm film, but both were shot in 8 mm film instead". It will not prevent the article to become a GA, but if you could find why this change occurred it will be helpful;
"Anno knew how to make anime, but never worked with cels before, helpful information came from the staff and pointed to Animepolis Pero, an anime hobby store chain." A "he" must be put after "but", and dot or a semicolon after "before";
Why "yen" is written with a capital letter?;
"The cost of the cels were too expensive, but purchased a single cel". Who purchased it? He or they?;
East Osake? Is this place in Japan? May be Osaka? Can you check the source?;
"but some that weren't in the film" => "but some that were not in the film";
In some places is written "Daicon" and in others "DAICON". Which is the correct form?;
"and Eng describes the theme as". Who is Eng? He is not mentioned before. A brief descripition would be helpful for the layman reader;
"In order to pay off the debts of the production, video copies of the animation were sold. Eng declares this as the first example of Original Video Animation predating Dallos. Kazutaka Miyatake of Studio Nue originally designed the mecha that appears in the DAICON III clip chasing the little girl for a Japanese edition of the Starship Troopers Military sci-fi novel in the early eighties." This both sentence wouldn't be better placed in "Production"?. "Original Video Animation" must written without capital letters, and Dallos must be italicized;
"the rights to use of the Playboy bunny". Playboy Bunny is already linked (Bunny girl redirects to there). WP:OVERLINK;
"appear in the 1991 Gainax OVA Otaku no Video." What is an OVA is not explained. It can be fixed by adding a "(OVA)" in front of the "original video animation" cited above.
These are the issues I could find. If you fix them, I can pass it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't qualify for GA in any way. It lacks any serious references and of the tiny handful that it does have, three come from the same author. It's certainly not "very well-written" (GA criteria): to see just one compositional flaw, reconsider the lead section and explain how it imparts the significance of the topic. The only thing it says is "They are known for their unusually high production values for amateur works and for including numerous references to otaku culture." Is this all there is to say? It seems thoughtless (and unfair to other laboring GA contributors) to pass this when it's not even clear that the topic could survive AfD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.153 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You are saying this is not-notable? That's an insult; perhaps you should log in and try discussing this not-so-anonymously. Lawrence Eng has a PhD and the subject of the doctoral thesis, which was on how "anime otaku and related subcultures engage and appropriate science and technology." Whether or not I use his references (to different parts of it) as both a means of showing, verifying and easily citing the information is irrelevant. The material is equally covered in Little Boy and the The Notenki Memoirs. Yes, these are two very short works made by some of the most notable people in the industry, this was there introduction and declaration to the world. I do not think it is acceptable to place the entirety of their lives and success as stemming simply from this work, but Daicon III and IV was the start of it all. They've been referenced by other works and achieved legendary status in the cult and industry circles - anyone so much even possessing the actual disc owns a piece of history. Considering that both films have been the subject of much discussion, and including in books on Japanese art and subculture, covered and mentioned as being "cult-classics" in many sources and discusses in depth in several, its notability is proven. These two films are likely independently notable, but I'd much rather have one single article on the two related works than split them up, as done with some of Avery's works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, @Gabriel Yuji:, I did the copy edits, but I think a bit of a tweak on the lead might be in order as it makes no mention of the key figures themselves. Would it be acceptable to reference how Anno became an iconic director and mecha designer in the lead? I wanted to stick purely with the facts, but if someone is apt to say "delete delete delete" because having recognition in numerous for 25 years means nothing, I rather head that off. I can throw in the Animage listing for the top 100 anime.[1] And I could always cite the claim that without it Gainax might "never have come into being."[2] I'll defer to you on this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You can add this two references in the article. They are very useful. About the lead, is best to try summarize better all points of the body than cite Anno directly in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Actually, it's a good information but would fit better in the "Legacy" section. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done Look good now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies for any insult you felt: I didn't mean it on any personal level. I think the new changes made to the lead have improved it a great deal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.37.157 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry didn't mean to be a bit abrasive. The work holds a bit of nostalgia and if two or three sources more helps make the importance clear, then that's good. The creators have had a profound impact in my life and is the reason I study the art form. Thanks for replying back, I've been stalked a by a troll as of late and I shouldn't have assumed you were one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, @ChrisGualtieri:! You've corrected almost all issues except for the sentence "The cost of the cels were too expensive, but purchased a single cel". Who purchased it? He (only Anno) or they (the staff)? I can't know it by reading the article. Now, this is the last thing you must to do to pass it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I worked on the text around it, but unfortunately its the ambiguous nature of the term that you are dealing with. The actual text is: "But we had a plan. We brought a single cel at Animepolis Pero and took it to the vinyl yards in East Osaka. "'Scuse me, you have anything like this?" we asked the guy working there. "Sure do!" he replied, bringing out a role of sheet vinyl. He said he'd sell it to us for (yen symbol)2000 a roll (about US$9 in 1981 dollars). Now we're talkin'! we thought. We brought one, took it home, cut it up. Then we tried painting on it... it was nothing like a cel."  Seriously, the "we" is never defined, but this heavily implies all four of them with the line above about "I (Takeda), Anno, Yamaga and Akai" in the sci-fi club. I've addressed the wording some, but there is not too much to condense here and really go on. If anything, this is part of the sci-fi club, so it is assumed all would be having a role in the decision making, and given Takeda's comments sounds like they all went together as a group. But that's a bit speculative. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but I've noticed you duplicated Train Man information in the Legacy. I edited it. Did I helped? If I corrected it I'll pass it since it was the last issue I could find. Sorry for the delay. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri:, can you answer my last question? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes and thanks. I've been away for quite some time. Busy work schedule and all. Thank you for fixing it up and reviewing this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Passing. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed uncited statements. While some are covered under MOS:PLOT, other uncited statements like in the "Production" section need inline citations. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)