Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Anime Herald
[edit]I noticed that this site has been cited in certain articles. Honestly, at first I thought it was going to be just another self-published blog, but the site has conducted its own interviews and some of its columns have been written by Lauren Orsini, who has also contributed for Anime News Network.[1][2][3][4][5] The site also has its own editorial staff. More evidence may be needed, but so far it seems to me a decent site that could perhaps be added to the list of RS. Xexerss (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Anime Corner
[edit]@Oozora Subaru: Can you explain your rationale on why Anime Corner would be a reliable source? The website looks to have an editorial policy but I'm a little unsure about the writers as they don't have a lot of notability overall. lullabying (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just to add, this was discussed back in Feb 2024 and was only very recently archived: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 3#Request to evaluate reliability of source
- Arguments used for were things like:
- - A clear editorial policy
- - A mission with a good focus on accuracy
- - Influence to get interviews
- - No major issues (but did find at one inaccuracy in their Konosuba: Love for These Clothes of Desire coverage).
- Arguments used against were things like:
- - Twitter used as a source which I could only find a single example of and it was relevant. Anime News Network (which some hold up as the most reliable anime site) has used less relevant tweets as a source, such as this one which is a screenshot of a Discord server by someone unconnected.
- - Young/inexperienced staff. Again, Again, Anime News Network has the same. Some staff have mentioned being students and their EiC isn't qualified in journalism. Apparently some of the Anime Corner staff do have some experience elsewhere which is mentioned in the previous discussion on this topic.
- In my opinion they are not exactly ideal but almost no anime source holds up to the same standards as some topics in many other areas. They do appear to be reliable with the very rare exception, which is about the same as many other sites with more notable staff. There's also not really many people who'd fulfil more standard 'reliable' conditions in the English speaking anime area at all, since that'd tend to be along the lines of the very few people who wrote published books on the topic or for the (almost entirely American) anime magazines. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The Otaku's Study
[edit]I was looking for secondary sources for the English cast of Kamisama Dolls (currently there's only one link to Facebook), and the only more or less decent site I found reporting that is a site called The Otaku's Study.[6] The site is apparently managed by a single person, named Sam, so it could be considered a personal blog. Still, the site has conducted its own interviews,[7] and was cited at least once by Anime News Network.[8] Certainly more evidence is needed to make a verdict on its reliability, but due to the scarcity of secondary sources for the Kamisama Dolls situation, I wonder if it would be fine to cite the site for specific cases like this. Xexerss (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Real Sound
[edit]Is Real Sound a reliable source? They often do interviews manga authors which can be useful as well as news. Use by ANN a bunch of times. ([9] [10] [11]) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)