Talk:Angel's Egg

message: There are no official interpretations of the symbolism, yet i feel it needs be represented somehow in the wiki article, since it is such a crucial aspect of the film. In such, i have provided an off-site interpretation, referenced in the symbolism section of the article. Feel free to add references to other off-site interpretations In the same section. 
peace and grace Saderlius (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: I have to say I'm embarassed by some of the grammar mistakes I made in writing some of this stuff, I'd just like people to know that I actually do know how to use apostrophes! =P HeartOfGold 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: I changed the Class from stub to start, since there is clearly more content than a stub article would have. Ninja neko 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: Shouldn't this article be named In the Aftermath?
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles)#Article_names_and_disambiguation
"Use the official English titles for article names..."
Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: This section appears to consist only of original research; blanking it. If there's evidence of a dedicated fan base (cosplay pictures, fansites, something), give a link. Same for the Wall-E similarities, as they sound pretty insignificant. --49.134.82.26 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Saying that Mako Hyodo would go on to have a supporting role in Sky Crawlers is just weird when Mako Hyodo has been in numerous Oshii movies as a key or central figure. I don't know what you should cite to get this across but it should not be left as it is now because it reads as if that's the only other connection between her and Oshii. 2601:603:4800:5D50:6427:9CBF:479B:6DB1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Mako Hyodo

message: The article previously cited a book on Oshii by Dani Carallaro and having read it, I noticed major issues, and questioned whether it was a reliable source. Checking online, i could confirm no details on her, and only found articles asking the same questions and raising very serious doubts about the quality of her scholarsip. Worst, the sources she uses are largely blog posts, which makes her book a form of laundering of unreliable sources. In contrast, Brian Ruh's book seemed a lot better. I can confirm he's a real person and the sources he cites are largely print magazines. As such, I removed Carallaro's work entirely and kept Ruh's book. 
Who is Brian Ruh? These are two newspaper covered the release of his book:  
* Ghost Tracker Part 1, Part 2 - The Reporter-Times. Sun, Oct 03, 2004
* Animated About Anime Part 1, Part 2 - The Star Press. Mon, Jan 10, 2005
Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite the articles about the quality of her scholarship? Her book was published by McFarland & Company. Is there a question of whether or not McFarland engaged in editorial oversight per WP:QUESTIONABLE? It looks like she has also been published by Bloomsbury Publishing. Looking at Google Books as seen here, Cavallaro has been named multiple times. Looking at Google Scholar here, their books have been cited many times. "Confirm[ing] no details about her" and if she is a "real" person seems like a spurious suspicion. Is this something we need to work out on WP:RSN? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually excited to read her work because I had an interest in the subject matter, but upon reading it I was shocked to realize how bad it is. She mostly cites self-published online blog sources which alone is enough to disqualify her. No one can confirm even the most basic of biographical details about her, or any supposed qualitifactions. See here or here for more. Contrast that with Brian Roh above, who has had coverage in print sources, full biographies explaining his academic career, and his book mostly cites print magazine sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a blog? I see Journal of Anime and Manga Studies under ISSN 2689-2596, but that appears different from this website. I'm not sure about using a blog (even by an expert) to upend Cavallaro as a reliable source in totality. I feel like a WP:RSN consensus is needed, and without that, I am not sure if it is proper to cast Cavallaro as dubious to cite here. Pinging  for their thoughts since they seem to continue editing this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I kind of lost the thread of the whole discussion, but as for Cavallaro, taking a quick look, I am more inclined to think that she is not a reliable writer. Xexerss (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I also think Carallaro is not a reliable source. Charcoal feather (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus shift: Dani Cavallaro