Talk:Eiji Tsuburaya/GA1

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

Reviewer: Oltrepier (talk · contribs) 08:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2: Hello, I'm planning to review this article as soon as possible! I'm sorry you had to wait for so long... Oltrepier (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( lists ): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism ): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have suitable captions ):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Right, I've finally finished taking a look at the whole article and making my considerations. Before we start, I must address that I boldly made some edits by myself, as I've tried my best to fix links and citations, re-elaborate unclear phrases and exclude some unnecessary details. I also took a look at the peer review you had requested for this same page, just so I could have more context.

So, you've definitely put a lot of care and work in this article: references and the overall structure look okay, and the page is quite broad in its coverage... maybe way too broad. Remember an article shouldn't just be long and detailed, but also concise and simple enough to make sure as many people as possible (not just the fans) enjoy what they're reading: always remember it when you're preparing/editing an article for a "global" encyclopedia like this, rather than a mono-themed wiki.

Like I said, sources look okay (I assume good faith on the bibliography), and I've already fixed all of the links to

this template

. Still, I couldn't always check if the text included original research (information that was not included in the original source/page) or plagiarized/excessively paraphrased excerpts. Please, avoid these mistakes whenever you can: you should always try to re-elaborate on the original sources by using your own words. It's usually safer and more enjoyable than just copy-pasting, anyway... : D

I've also spotted some issues with prose throughout the article, and I'll make sure to provide some examples right down below very soon. In the meantime, I'll ask for a second opinion on this review, since I feel in need of help from a true film expert. That's all for now! Oltrepier (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 2ndo but I notice the article is 13729 words. This is more than recommended at WP:Article size and the article would likely benefit from some splitting or trimming to reduce the length and increase readability. If it were going to FAC I would recommend reducing the length to 7000–8000 words to maximize the chance of passing. However, because of the GA criteria I would not fail the article based on length alone if all the material is on topic. (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: Thank you very much for the input and review so far! Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've checked all the sources available to me to prove there is no original research, and fix up some info on what Ragone said about his importance. I'll get my friend in Japan to check some of the Japanese sources too if you want. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2: You're welcome, and well done on that front! I've just realized that I should have added a few more notes in my original review. Firstly, the images you've used all look alright and are referenced correctly, including the one under fair use conditions: however, be careful about the status of the pictures taken after 1946, since they're automatically in the public domain in Japan, but there might be issues with US policies.

Secondly, there are sections of the article (for example, the "Style, themes, and techniques" paragraph) where a whole block of text is singlehandedly supported by one or two citations: I think you should try to provide each phrase with a citation, whenever it's possible, so you can improve accuracy. On the other hand, it's also a question of balance, so try not to "overload" a sentence with too many citations (two or three at once are usually enough).

Finally, I noticed that you included details about Tsuburaya's personal life throughout the "Biography" section, such as his marriage, the birth of his children and his conversion: to be honest, they should form a whole new section ("Personal life") on their own, just so you can organize those bits of information better.

Alright, back to my prose-related doubts:

- He is considered one of the most important and influential figures in the history of cinema and a creator of the Godzilla and Ultraman franchises. Shouldn't be better to invert these two phrases? Maybe something like this: "A co-creator of the Godzilla and Ultraman franchises, he/Tsuburaya is considered one of the most important and influential figures in the history of cinema [both at national and international level]."

 Done

- Through Natsu, Tsuburaya was related to the Edo period painter Aōdō Denzen, who brought copper printing and Western painting to Japan, from whom Tsuburaya considered to have inherited his dexterity. That last phrase needs to be clearer, in my opinion: what does "dexterity" mean here?

 Fixed I clarified on the page that he is considered to have gotten his good hand skills from Aōdō by changing it to "manual dexterity" if that's acceptable.

- Though he often daydreamed of flying during his elementary school years, Tsuburaya was interested in regular studies. Consequently, his aunt, Yoshi, predicted he would become prosperous by the age of thirty-three. In 1910, Tsuburaya took an interest in flight due to the success of Japanese aviators. Two years after, he took advantage of a photograph featured in a newspaper article and started building model airplanes as a hobby, an interest he would pursue throughout his entire life. This block, albeit relevant, should definitely be trimmed: remember what I said about editing Wikipedia articles? For me, it would be enough to just write: "During his childhood, Tsuburaya became interested in flying, thanks to the success of Japanese aviators; he soon started building model airplanes as a hobby, an interest he would pursue throughout his entire life."

 Done

- While at the school, he started working as an inventor at the toy company Utsumi and created some successful products that are still widely used in the 21st century. His devised inventions at the company include the first battery-powered phone capable of making calls, an automatic speed photo box, an "automatic skate" and the toy phone. The latter two earned him a patent fee of ¥500. I know this is sourced, but doesn't it risk to be a slight stretch? I think you could just remove the "successful products" part...

 Done

- In the spring of 1919, Tsuburaya and his associates held a hanami party at a tea house: during the party, there was a dispute between some of his coworkers and another group at the tea house. In the midst of the brawl, Tsuburaya, who had just returned from the restroom, started conversing with an individual from the other group, named Yoshirō Edamasa, a pioneer of Japanese cinema himself. Honestly, the details about the brawl are a bit confusing in this context: it seems like Edamasa suddenly stopped brawling and turned to Tsuburaya: "Hey you! ... Do you like movies?" But seriously, I think it'd be better if you just wrote that Tsuburaya met Edamasa during that party, without adding too much background.

 Done

- On The Three Treasures, Tsuburaya used for the first time the "Toho Versatile Process", which he developed on a budget of ¥62 million for widescreen color films and revealed in May of the same year. Can you add a brief explanation about the TVP, if possible?

Added a description of it.

- Tsuburaya directed sequences at a miniature outdoor set on the Miura Coast, which depicted the giant octopus's attack on the Faro Island village: shortly after, he reportedly ate some of the four octopuses for dinner with some of his crew's members. Again, I must admit that second half made me giggle, but I don't think it's necessary to keep it...

Removed.

Obviously, these are just a few examples, but I hope you'll get a sense of the advice I intended to give you. Also, sorry for the extremely long comment! Oltrepier (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all you've requested here except adding the "Personal life" section as I believe it would be better to leave it as part of the "Biography" section for now unless you want to discuss this further. Also, I'll get round to sorting "Style, themes, and techniques" section out soon. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2: Sounds good! That's fine about those details: just make sure they don't get too lost in the "sea" of text, though. While sorting out the sections, keep @buidhe's advice in mind, too... Now I'm going to put the review on hold, so you can make the final edits. Oltrepier (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but haven't I already done everything you requested the other day? If not what exactly did I miss? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2: Sorry, I was rather referring about the "Style, themes, and techniques" section, since you mentioned it... Did I miss your edits there? Oltrepier (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe I have completely made the edits you requested in the section. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2: Oh, ok! Now, just bear with me a little more, as I wanted to address a few other things I've noticed in the meantime (please don't hate me for this), and then we should be good to go:

- He decided to accomplish special effects sequences in films showcasing his contributions by utilizing miniature effects and synthesis technology involving layered strips of film. Is it me, or the first half of this sentence - until "contributions" - could be even clearer?

 Fixed (changed it to He decided to accomplish creating special effects sequences in films by utilizing miniature effects and synthesis technology involving layered film strips.)

- Ryfle and Godziszewski stated that the two infrequently socialized outside Toho Studios and were not personal friends, but nevertheless shared a "tsu-ka relationship". Just to clarify, is tsu-ka a synonym for "tight" in this context?

Added a footnote to clarify what the authors say tsu-ka means.

- While enduring grueling filming conditions and work schedules, Tsuburaya wore soft hats, suits, and ties at work because of his innovative spirit, intensity, and devotion to his profession. I don't know if this sentence is all that useful at this point, since the two previous paragraphs already give a general sense of his professionalism.

 Removed

- During the early 1970s, Lucas visited Toho when looking for a company to produce the special effects for Star Wars (1977) since Tsuburaya had established the company as a mecca for producing special effects. So, did Lucas himself state that, or it was just an observation from the biography? Also, try to re-word the last words as "as a 'mecca' in the branch/industry", just to avoid redundancy.

 Fixed (changed it to During the early 1970s, Lucas visited Toho when looking for a company to produce the special effects for Star Wars (1977) since Tsuburaya had established the company as a mecca for producing special effects.); it's simply a remark in the biography.

- The doodle allowed users to have a create Tsuburaya's key monster movies and television shows. Was it a typo with the second verb ("have a create")?

 Fixed (changed it to The doodle allowed users to create a scene from one of Tsuburaya's key monster movies and television shows.)

- I also thought about adding references for the "Selected filmography" section, but you already included them on a separate page, so we probably don't need them here.

Agreed, I did consider adding refs to the section in the past btw.

Alright, that's all! Like I said, you've definitely outdone yourself while working on this article. Oltrepier (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and comments for this helpful review! I think I've done everything you recommended here now and will start to try and get it ready for FA status by July if so! Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2: You're very welcome! Just for transparency, I've realized that one of the biographers you quoted had done several edits on the page by himself between 2008 and 2016, seemingly without declaring conflict of interest. Obviously, it's not your fault, and you've become the main contributor to the article anyway, but I just need to check real quick - here's the discussion - if we can still go ahead with the promotion. Sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2: Alright, I'm happy to tell you I've been given the green light to go ahead with the promotion. Congratulations! Oltrepier (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]