# Talk:Snow Prince

The problems that prevent this article from attaining B-class:

Referencing
Not reliable references: #8, #27 (IMDB isn't a reliable source, see WP:RS/IMDB), #10 (JpopAsia.com is user edited), #25 (looks self-published WP:SPS)--The reviewer is  well known for his movie-reviews in Asian films. (as per exception in "Self-published expert sources")
Doubts about references: #4 (movieexclusive.com)- I am only making use of the review, and it is not required to source reviews. #6 (Tokyograph.com)-It is merely translating what reputable Japanese sources like Oricon Style or Sports Hoshi publishes. (I thought that most readers will not understand the Japanese. And it is fulfilling the request for an English Language one.)
I don't know where you got the impression that sources are not required for reviews, but I assure you that is not the case.  See  Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film)#Critical_response (Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received). As for Tokyograph, if it is translating reviews from elsewhere then it might be a good idea to include the source of the original review in the reference as well as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Ref 30 (El Magazine) isn't reliable, the original review in the magazine might be a reliable source, but the reference is for a copy of it on Wordpress which is an WP:SPS blog site (the reference also violates WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT because the source is wordpress, not the magazine that published it). Ref 32 (Nutshell review) is an WP:SPS blog and therefore not a reliable source.Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Not enough reference information: #14 ("The Making of Snow Prince" Video) WP:V
Ref 25 doesn't seem to supply the correct reference for the link. Also, not all the references give publication/retrieval dates. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Coverage
Lead section is inadequate.  See Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Lead_section.
Plot summary doesn't meet WP:FILMPLOT guidelines which state summaries should be 400–700 words.
Cast list is basically just a credit roll. Doesn't comply with WP:FILMCAST.
There is no coverage of the development and pre-production of the film.
The Theme Song section could do with more exposition. What is the "The Snow Prince Gasshōdan group"? What is the context of the song i.e. what is notable about it?
No coverage of its critical reception in its home country.
Structure is counter-intuitive.  Article should be divided into sections of related material. I advise modelling the structure on WP:MOSFILM.
"Release" should not be a sub-section of "Production".
"Theme Songs" should be probably come under "Soundtrack" or "Production".
"Film Festivals" should probably come under "Release".
"Critical Reception", "Box Office" and "Awards" should all come under "Reception".
While the level of English is adequate, the prose could still do with some work, it doesn't flow very well.Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the article has come on a lot which is why I've upgraded it to C class; the reason I haven't given it B class is because there are still shortcomings in the coverage of the production of the film.  The production information is still basic and I don't believe it meets the requirement that Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. If you compare it to the example B class article [1] you will see the casting and production content is much more substantial than it is here, and gives a much clearer overview of the film's background. It is fully sourced now, the structure is fine and it is neutral, it just needs a bit more background on the production. Betty Logan (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd also agree that the article is still C-class. There are several areas that could use additional citations along with some further improvement to the prose/formatting. I'd recommend having someone copyedit the article. For some of the brief sections, try and expand on the details or incorporate them into another section to improve the flow of the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have reviewed this article to determine if it should be assessed at B class. Below are a few issues that should be resolved prior to reassessment.

The two non-free images exceed size requirements, so I tagged them with {{non-free reduce}}. Someone may address this for you, but if you know how to do it, feel free.
"The story begins in the present..." Reword the plot so it doesn't become self-referential with details like "the story", "the movie", or "the film ends".
The citations in the plot section when covering standard plot details.
In the cast section, the citations either directly follow the actor's name or the end of the character description; make it consistent.
There are a lot of brief paragraphs throughout the article. See if similar details can be merged together to improve the flow of the article.
See if the official website's link can be retrieved from the Internet Archive, if not, remove it from the article. 
There's still some more grammar and overlinking issues throughout the article. Have another editor or visit WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to have someone take a look at the article.
Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be upgraded to B class. You can either make this assessment yourself or let me know and I'll give it another look. Good work so far. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I went through and did some cleanup, including modifying the plot and merging a few of the paragraphs together. I reassessed the article as B class. Before advancing to GA, I would recommend getting a few more editors to take a look at it and make sure that all of the citations are as complete as possible. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snow Prince/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pass. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


### Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

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

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
Pass
Images have fair use rationales. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Stable. No edit wars. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Focus. There are no excessively detailed sections. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Neutral. Article is fair and balanced. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Prose is now acceptable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Coverage is broad enough, following the format and content of other audited film articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing. Google translate may be crude, but it provides enough evidence to support what is said in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Query
Major aspects. The film is an adaptation of A Dog of Flanders. It might be useful to have some information in the article about the book. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Fail
Prose. I have copy-edited the lead for obvious mistakes, but what remains is still a bit awkward. The article contains basic errors, and the prose lacks sophistication in places resulting in awkward reading. The phrasing obscures the meaning rather than delivering it clearly. Example - "An elderly woman, Sayo Arima, receives an unexpected package containing a manuscript. It was left by an old man, who says that it was written by his father Haigo. As Sayo reads it, she recalls events related to the special friendship that she shared with a poor village boy named Sota." Could be better presented as "Sayo Arima, an elderly woman, unexpectedly receives a manuscript written by Haigo, the circus clown. The manuscript deals with events seventy years earlier when Sayo Arima was friends with Sota, a poor village boy." The article needs a decent copy-edit - at the moment it reads like an awkward translation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to tidy up the prose, but it's not easy as I don't know the film. It appears that the film goes into a flashback, but it's not easy to pick up what is story and what is scene setting. Based on the information given in the article, it wouldn't be possible for someone to do an appropriate job of copy-editing. There would need to be a decent source to use, or the film itself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


### Hold
I'll need some time to check out sources. A lot of sources are in Japanese which makes things a little awkward, but Google Translate will provide some help. In the meantime, the two areas that need attention are prose and the lead. Most GANs need to have work done on the lead, so that is quite normal. And prose often needs a brush up. If there isn't much that needs doing with the prose I'll generally do it myself as that is quicker and easier than writing it out in the review. In this case there is the problem that in order to write up the Plot section properly, one needs to have a knowledge of the plot, so I can't do much with that alone - but we can work together on it if need be. I'll put this on hold for an initial seven days to allow work to get started on building the lead, and brushing up the Plot section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


### Responses
(Moved from User talk:SilkTork)
Thanks for reviewing this article! Since this is my first GA nomination, I might need quite a lot of guidance from you, so thanks for the help in advance. I have added more information to the lead, but I feel that the paragraph I added does not flow really well. Can you have a look at it? I still have two other queries:
The problem in the Plot section you mentioned has been bugging me since the article was Start-class. However, despite many attempts by three other editors and myself, it is still not up to standard. Therefore, I would definitely need your expertise in this area. Can you highlight to me the sentences/paragraphs that needs working on (and mention what is wrong with them, if possible), so that I can try to redo these with your help? And if you have any queries about the plot, I will be happy to answer them (Sadly, any external writeup of this film's plot does not exist anymore, so I can't show you any). 
Lastly, you mentioned about adding the book's information. Can you specify which area is lacking (eg:plot/history/background info) so that I can work on it? Thank you and I look forward to working with you. Apologizes if my English is not really perfect. Happy editing!--Lionratz (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am prepared to offer some help, though it has to be understood that GAN is not a writing aid, it is a review of an article that is felt to meet GA criteria, so there is an assumption the article is already quite good. I support the GA project as it does improve articles, and my main aim in doing GA reviews is to assist articles to meet GA criteria. Time, motivation and ability will always vary, and if the article requires a lot of assistance from me which is not possible for me to complete in a reasonable space of time I am likely to fail the article and suggest that the required work is completed at leisure and the article renominated.  This is not a problem as a fail is not permanent, and articles can be renominated quite easily.
I note that work has been done; though some of those edits have introduced errors into the article. A full stop has been introduced, producing this: "a 2009 Japanese film. adapted from the novel". And this sentence: "Sayo Arima, an elderly woman, unexpectedly receives a manuscript written by Haigo, the circus clown" has been changed into: "An elderly Sayo Arima unexpectedly receives a manuscript from Haigo's son". In the original sentence two characters are introduced: "Sayo Arima" - "an elderly woman"; and "Haigo" - "the circus clown"; this has been altered into an assumption that the reader knows who the characters are, so they are not explained or introduced - "An elderly Sayo Arima" (what or who is that?) and "Haigo's son" (who is Haigo?).
I'll extend the hold into the New Year, and see what I can do to help. Though, as I said above, I will need to have access to a good English translation of the plot, or have the plot explained on this review page. Without that, I cannot do appropriate work on the plot section. If you are not able to provide the required plot information, and you feel you are not able to improve the prose yourself, then please let me know. We can try asking around for assistance. If none is forthcoming, then the GAN will need to be closed. But we'll have a go at improving the article first. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed the new problems (hopefully) that you mentioned. As for the plot section, can you highlight problematic sentences so that I can think of ways to rephrase them? And as for translated versions of the plot, the most complete I can find is this one. Additionally, you can find the film's English-subbed trailer at Nippon Cinema. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it.--Lionratz (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


### Pass
This is a useful and informative article on what appears to be a pleasant film. The lead still needs some work, though it does just about cover all the main points in the article so it meets GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)