Wikipedia:Peer review/Shin Ultraman/archive1

Shin Ultraman


I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed to meet GA states as it didn't meet the reasonably well-written standard. According to the reviewer, the major problem with the article was that the Critical response "lacks cohesive narrative"; but I've now deleted one of their reasons why it failed, which was the sentence reading: "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." (also it was unsourced). Can someone please give some suggestions on what still needs fixing in the Critical response section and the overall article? Note: I may not be online much from after Christmas until late January 2023. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2022 (NZDT)

Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:


 * Is the long block quote in "Development and writing" necessary, or can some/all of it be cut and summarised?
 * Its the film's screenwriter explaining the film's target audience and intentions so I think it's certainly necessary. I've just trimmed it down a bit for now. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2022 (NZDT)


 * The "Critical reception" section falls into the "X says Y" trap. Consider reading WP:RECEPTION for ideas on how to reformat this section. Specifically, I suggest grouping the critiques by theme instead of by positive/negative reviews.
 * - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2023 (NZDT)


 * Reference titles should not be in all caps, per MOS:ALLCAPS.
 * ✅ - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2022 (NZDT)


 * Consider removing some links in the "External links" section per MOS:ELNO
 * ✅ - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2022 (NZDT)

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's completely fixed now and ready to be renominated for GA. Is there anything else or did I forget/not fix something? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2023 (NZDT)
 * "Overall, the film has grossed approximately $33,823,581 worldwide." Needs a reference. Other than this, I think this is OK for a GAN, where someone will do a deeper review of the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this helpful review! Btw, that sentence is derived from information provided by Anime News Network and Box Office Mojo; Box Office Mojo says it only grossed $31,199,952 in Japan instead of $33.5 million, with the latter making the worldwide total $33,823,581 (I can discuss this with the GA reviewer if you wish). - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2023 (NZDT)

Comments from Alaney2k
While these are not part of the 'well-written' discussion, I noticed a couple of things. Nothing major, but things to keep in mind before nominating an article. I've noticed GA articles that have these problems, but it looks good to consider these.
 * The article was a 'sea of blue'. (WP:SEA OF BLUE) These were duplicate wikilinks, sometimes repeated several times and more than once in a paragraph. There is a script that detects duplicate wikilinks, so I used that to clean that up. The basic rule is one wikilink for the prose section and one per the lede section. Tables, citations and image captions are not counted in the total, although I usually try to keep down the duplication as a whole in tables and cites myself. Something to keep in mind for the future before a GA nomination.Alaney2k (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You should complete the 'alt' tags for all of the images. Something to keep in mind for the future before a GA nomination. Alaney2k (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)