Talk:Godzilla Minus One/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Eiga-Kevin2 (talk · contribs) 07:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Broc (talk · contribs) 05:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Will review. Broc (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This is my most ambitious article yet so I am really hopeful it's at least GA worthy. I really appreciate that you've decided to take the time to do it because I was starting to hate the long wait for a reviewer for this. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a huge backlog at WP:GA, and I can see the frustration of waiting 3+ months. I'll get to it within the next few days :) Broc (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again and good to know. I'm planning on getting it to FA status before November if this review is successful btw Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

General comments

Not a full review yet, but I will note my thoughts as I read through the page:

Prose

• Godzilla is mutated and empowered by the United States' nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll is this shown in the movie?

Yep. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• lowering the water's buoyancy is this the correct term?

Changed to "reversing water aeration" because that sounds somewhat more adequate to me. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• IJN destroyers the acronym needs to be defined first per MOS:ABBR

Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• all were canceled as they felt unclear who "they" is

Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• regaled is loaded language, see MOS:SAID

Changed to "articulated" if that's alright. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Personnel are sourced "personnel" is singular

Changed to crew listing. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yamazaki hoped these events are reflected clearly - would be reflected clearly

Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• when announced the two would star - when he announced (?)

Changed to "when it was disclosed". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• lots of revealed throughout the article, see MOS:SAID

Changed most of them to works like "disclosed". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• According to Robot's website, the film would be set between 1945 and 1947, so there would be restrictions on the extras' costume sizes,... this sentence reads as if it was written before release and never updated

Changed. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• In the end, we erased the data from the scene where it was done, and made it while opening the hard disk. I know this is a verbatim quote but I'm not sure what it means. Perhaps lost in translation?

Its meaning is a bit lost to me too. Unfortunately, the article it is from is in English and has no translatable original Japanese quote available. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• lifted the embargo there was no real embargo, MOS:IDIOM

Re-worded. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Tamashii who is Tamashii? It's only mentioned here with no context. Same for Hiroaki Fukushi. Do these names need to be included in the section?

Seem necessary enough to me so I've specified who both of them are. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• In the "Box office section", avoid using exact values per MOS:LARGENUM. Example, $48.2 million instead of $48,207,737

Changed. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• have made unsubstantiated claims this is WP:EDITORIALIZING

Fixed. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Tatari-gami can this be substituted by an English word?

Added English translation next to it in brackets. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Spot check 39b: ok
• Spot check 35b: only part of the paragraph can be sourced to it, tagged the second half with {{citation needed}}

Fixed. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check 58: ok

I checked the source you replaced with the citation needed template and found Yamazaki's quote in it per Google Translate: "It is set even before the time of the original Godzilla, so in that sense it is also a 'minus one'. It is also a 'minus one' in the sense of a run-up -- a pull back to get back on your feet in the face of difficult times. It can also be a 'minus one' of losing something, and I hope that people will feel the various meanings in this film as they watch it." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

My bad, please change it back Broc (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check 68: ok
• Spot check 86: ok
• Spot check 103: ok but the date doesn't match. The date of the source is 23 October, in the article it says 6 November. Which one is right?

Fixed. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check 108: ok
• Spot check 93&109: ok, but perhaps it should be clear from the sentence that the source for one of Toho's largest domestic distributions is a press release from Toho themselves

Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check 134: ok
• Spot check 149: ok, but the original source [1] shows that the movie is now 94th best-grossing of all time. Should the information be updated, and a date be added to it?

I've just removed that source and replaced it with that one. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Spot check 162: ok
• Section "U.S. performance" needs additional sources to support the statement that "several media analysts and journalists..."

Removed the statement and reworded the section. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Images

• Images are pertinent and use suitable captions
• Images are missing alt text, critical for accessibility per WP:ALT. Not needed for GA but you might want to fix it if you plan on going for FA later.

Will probably add alt at a later date then if it isn't crucial for GA. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Full review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor MOS:WTW issues fixed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   sourcing issues fixed

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A generally enjoyable, well-written, well-sourced article. Minor issues found while reviewing were promptly fixed

Broc (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.