After finishing my review - and some minor copyedits - I feel that this article is right to the point of toeing the good article line. The only things holding it back:
The last reference needs to be expanded;
The filmography section is largely unreferenced. OPUS is among the best examples of this; it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. To an uneducated reader this makes it difficult to verify.
@New Age Retro Hippie: I removed the bare ANN reference and replaced it with the book citation from Osmond. The OPUS book is fairly obscure, but I did provide two cites, one giving basic information and a look at the work and the other providing the collected release date. OPUS is not a film though and I did manage to get that citation for Seraphim as a collaboration. Since you wanted more citations for the filmography, I did a lot more there as well. I didn't think these really could be contentious, but rather than citing the credits themselves, I just used Osmond and Catsuka (which did an exhibition on Kon). ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not trying to make any extra work for you, I still feel that a few entries in the filmography, manga, and literary works sections need additional citations. As it stands now for example, I don't see that a reader could trust that - say - Paprika: Dream Children was an actual work of his. Additionally, what do the numbers after some of the entries mean (ie 123 following Paranoia Agent and Tokyo Godfathers)? - New Age Retro Hippie(talk)(contributions)03:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the manga, last I checked that hasn't been released properly since his passing, with a full publication. Now the "123" is part of the source verification, it is the page number consulted from the book. So source 39, page 123 in those cases. I find this format to work best when I use differing pages without making new references. Its just a different style is all. Though I doubt there is much issue with the references. I could use the personal/official website of Kon[1]. I didn't think that something with his name on it could really be contested here, since if you have it, you'd see it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following references have domain or sub-domain redirects: Refs 6, 8, 16, 18 and 30.
Given this is EN wiki, an english translation of all foreign language titles should be available, using the |trans_title= parameter in the references.
The referencing style of this article is inconsistent:
All konstone.s-kon.net references should have publisher as Satoshi Kon
|publisher= field is not filled in for Refs (4, 7, 8, 15, 19, 21 and 24)
|date= field is not filled in for Refs 4, 31 and 41.
|last= and |first= not filled in for Midnight Eye interviews and Ref 30 (TIME).
Ref 27 should be expanded to full ref with title and date.
Suggestion: After all the above referencing problems are fixed, archival parameters such as |archiveurl=, |archivedate= and |deadurl= should be filled in with Wayback/Archive.is urls to prevent further linkrot. Extremepro (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most were easy fixes. 12 and 13 are not captured, but the information is elsewhere, so I cited and removed the dead links. And the rest of these issues are FA matters and not GA ones - even dead links are acceptable according to policy, but fixing those are pretty important. Much of the site got shuffled around and I disagree with putting the publisher as Satoshi Kon for the website because he's deceased - he's not running or publishing the material. I do not have the ability to properly translate the titles to "correct English", but they would need to be fixed before going to FA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on finding archived urls. Kon as publisher and trans_title and most of the other points aren't needed for GA-level. However, I think fixing the redirecting urls is (which are currently refs 6, 8, 15, 17, 29). Twitch Films review in the external links is also a redirect - but that can be addressed in FA. I'll pass this review once the redirecting urls have been fixed. Extremepro (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting urls? I do not know what you mean. They are not dead and WP:GA says they only need to be verifiable - which includes dead links - so I disagree that whatever the issue is that it would prevent passage because this is not stated anywhere in the GA criteria. More so, I don't really know what you are asking because I get there just fine on clicking the links. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pass
