Talk:Shin Ultraman/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Doing... This is such a chunky article so bear with me. In the meantime, I'll give you some preliminary notes to work on as I go through the article for other issues it might have.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Preliminary notes:
- In the cast section, that paragraph dedicated to the cameo appearances must be removed, because the Cast section is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of names (especially of those who don't have English-language articles in the mainspace). Those cast with in-universe details will suffice.
Done - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:16, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
- Remove album cover art and track listing, as WP:FILMMUSIC is against the inclusion of album cover arts in film articles as well as track listings that add very little educational value to readers. Just identify noteworthy tracks in the prose.
- Done - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:16, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
- I've hidden the tracks on disc 2 so I can possibly use them on a separate article for the film's soundtrack sometime in the future. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:33, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
- I'm not sure I understand how you solved this one, as I can still see the track listing in Music. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's now all hidden until I might need it. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2022 (NZST)
- I'm not sure I understand how you solved this one, as I can still see the track listing in Music. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've hidden the tracks on disc 2 so I can possibly use them on a separate article for the film's soundtrack sometime in the future. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:33, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
- I'm not crazy about those critical response sections, particularly Critical response internationally; they feel bloated due to "quote-farming". Worst, prose are not thematically organized and use the hackneyed "A of B said C, writing/saying" structure. Per MOS:FILMCRITICS, directly quote from the source only "if any form of paraphrasing is disputed". See Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for sage advice on writing this section better. I suggest that you start these section from scratch. Here are some tips to get you started: focus on the Crunchyroll, Nerdist, Anime News Network, ComicBook.com, /Film and IGN reviews (as these are much better sources) and get rid of the other reviews; and find out what aspects of the film each review has generally picked up on—acting, visuals, direction, editing, music, etc—and group these sentiments accordingly. And more importantly, paraphrase as best as you can; directly quoting reviews with little effort is not the solution. See the Critical response for Terminator 2, which provides a better example of a well-written reception section. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be fixing the section up over the next day or two. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:14, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
Fixed (I assume) - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:54, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
- No good. I'm afraid it still not on par with the examples provided, and no improvement was done in the Critical response in Japan section at all. Please take a good hard look on Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections to improve these sections and satisfy the "well written" standard. Don't simply mimic what have been done in the examples, make sure you also understood what the guideline wanted to achieve. I'm strongly leaning towards failing this GAN to give you ample time to work on a better draft (preferably with another editor knowledgeable about the movie). What do you think? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Tbh I have little experience on the site but I'm trying to do my best to make this article GA-worthy. I've gone by your advice (was editing article all morning) and read the entire Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections page, looked at GA pages (such as Mad Max: Fury Road). Also, I merged the response sections. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2022 (NZST)
- Apologies, but the changes put forth are perfunctory. For instance, Many reviewers have praised the film for Higuchi and Anno's ambition to introduce Ultraman to modern audiences and the film's direction, characters, editing, cinematography, visual effects, musical score, and action sequences. is unsourced and not properly substantiated by the paragraph its signposting. Contrasting opinions between positive and negative reviews are not accorded their due weight, either; reviews can't possibly agree on everything about the movie. What we're left is a reception which, although significantly trimmed down, lacks a cohesive narrative. Clearly missed the point of the guideline. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Tbh I have little experience on the site but I'm trying to do my best to make this article GA-worthy. I've gone by your advice (was editing article all morning) and read the entire Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections page, looked at GA pages (such as Mad Max: Fury Road). Also, I merged the response sections. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2022 (NZST)
- No good. I'm afraid it still not on par with the examples provided, and no improvement was done in the Critical response in Japan section at all. Please take a good hard look on Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections to improve these sections and satisfy the "well written" standard. Don't simply mimic what have been done in the examples, make sure you also understood what the guideline wanted to achieve. I'm strongly leaning towards failing this GAN to give you ample time to work on a better draft (preferably with another editor knowledgeable about the movie). What do you think? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- A follow-up to my third point: /Film and IGN North America reviews are better alternatives to the Our Culture Mag and South China Morning Post reviews Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was a bit uncertain about adding the former review site (/Film) as it is a blog. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:23, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
- I see. Just use the Screen Anarchy, then. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- 👌 - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:14, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
- I see. Just use the Screen Anarchy, then. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be fixing the section up over the next day or two. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:14, 4 December 2022 (NZST)
Quick fail
[edit]As a result of the perfunctory changes put forth in Reception section, this GAN can't reasonably be expected to satisfy the "reasonably well written" criterion overall; therefore, a quick fail is in order. Nominator, who admits to being inexperienced in the site, should put in requests for a peer review and a copy edit (at the Guild of Copy Editors) before pursuing a renomination at a later date. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)