Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

I've been considering this nomination for a while. This is a 2013 promotion that underwent a peer review in 2016. My most pressing concern is the failure of criterion 2b (reliable sources), with multiple self-published sources, primary sources, and other problematic material used. I've added inline or banner tags for all of these issues (though some of these have gone unresolved for over a year). I also doubt the article clears criterion 3a (addresses main aspects) with the number of high-quality scholarly sources left unused in § Further reading. Delist. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as one of the major contributors to the article, I've also notified the relevant WikiProjects of this reassessment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i concur, i'm surprised that the article doesn't even source napier's anime from akira to howl's moving castle. i see sources from travel websites and amazon (twice), and it seems as though the accolades section has been flagged as requiring attention for over a year. unless all of these issues are fixed quickly, i (regrettably) call to delist. Plifal (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article can claim to meet current {{Good article}} standards when the Awards/Accolades table is not properly referenced. WP:VERIFY is fundamental. Unless there is an editor actively working to fix it soon then the article should be downgraded for failing to meet the necessary standard. -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive cleanup, thanks. (I would also recommend removing any Navbox for any awards that are no longer mentioned directly on this page. Relevance matters, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NAVBOX "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.") -- 109.77.194.73 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on § Accolades, EzrealChen! That section is now in much better shape. For the purposes of this reassessment, however, my !vote stays the same due to the other issues I mentioned in my nomination statement. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]