Talk:Ultraman (1966 TV series)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The images are suitably tagged, but there are three fair use images -- five if you count the three in the composite image of the suits. Given that that image is also in Ultraman (character), I don't think we can justify all of this is minimal. I think the suit images need to be removed.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • dvdtalk.com

    Atlantic306 said it was a reliable source on the RSN thread. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • henshinjustice.com -- appears to be a blog
  • theroarbots.com
  • slashfilm.com -- appears to be a blog
  • aintitcool.com
  • birthmoviesdeath.com -- seems to be a one-person operation

All of these sources, sans Henshin Justice (I removed it), are marginally reliable, similarly how

WP:RSP. WP:RSP does not list these sources as reliable or not but there's very little sources that cover topics such as obscure 1960's Japanese sci-fi films/shows. The sources I culled were the best I could find and were carefully chosen based on how neutral and educational they presented the subject. Armegon (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand the limitations of the available sources, and I think ScreenRant is a good example --

WP:RS/PS says it can be used for entertainment topics but not controversial statements. I agree that if we can show these sources are in the same category as ScreenRant, they can be used in the same way. The problem with these is that I can't even tell if they rise to ScreenRant's level. ScreenRant has a pretty big footprint and has corporate backing, a fact checking policy, and editorial staff -- see here. I wouldn't need that much evidence to support these sources, but I need to see something to show that they're not just one-person sites that do no fact checking. Can you show that any of these are treated as reliable source by other reliable sources? E.g. do they get quoted by the media? Are they listed in books about Japanese culture as reliable places to go? Can you find anything about their fact checking or editorial approach, or whether they are corporate owned rather than fan-run? Are any of the authors acknowledged elsewhere as subject matter experts? Any of that would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"Brim-like" is the description the cited source uses and Ultraman's nose/mouth area perfectly resembles the edge corner of a table/counter as well. Armegon (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ultraman's three-minute Color Timer was added": what is this? Readers who don't know the show need an explanation inline.
• "practiced the beam and Shuwatch poses": again, what are these?
• "retaining the appropriate grain": what does grain mean?
• The first sentence of the "North America" subsection is uncited.
• "most of the Ultraman library from Tsuburaya Productions through Indigo Entertainment, including 1,100 episodes and 20 films": there were 1,100 episodes and 20 films of Ultraman?
• I've added links to SVOD and AVOD, both to
  video-on-demand
  digital rights".
• "Ultraman, amongst other titles, will stream in the United States and Canada": written to refer to the future; presumably this now needs to be rewritten as it's two years later.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to fixing up the article someday soon since the nominator seems to have forgotten about it. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 3:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Also pinging the nominator, Armegon, in case they just didn't notice this was being reviewed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "forgotten" about it. Life and health has gotten in my way and some things required priority over this since I'm given at least 7 days to make these changes. Armegon (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give you more than 7 days if you need it; I'll check back in a week if I haven't seen any changes, but I'm fine with leaving it open for a while. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More time would be greatly appreciated. Armegon (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a majority of the suggestions. Armegon (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck everything except the remaining source questions. I'm not saying those have to be removed, I'm asking for evidence that they're reliable, in which case they can stay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Slashfilm is pretty reliable. They have corporate backing and a fact checking/correction/ethical policy [1]. Birthmoviesdeath and Ain't it Cool don't seems to have a policy page like Slash or Screen Rant. However, Birthmoviesdeath confirms to be part of Cinestate [2]. I'm not sure if that constitutes as corporate backing. Ain't It Cool has been referenced by the LA Times [3] and NY Times [4]. However, those articles are from 1997/98 but the site seems to have grown since. Additionally, both sources are exclusive interviews with Del Toro where he confirms the show's influence on Pacific Rim. Armegon (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent mention of Ain't It Cool News was back in 2017, albeit it was about addressing Harry Knowles' sexual misconduct allegations [5]. Armegon (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK on Slashfilm; thanks for finding that link. The AintItCool stories talk about the site being essentially one person; clearly he is/was influential but I don't think it's enough to show the site is reliable. Yes it seems to have grown since then but I think we'd need evidence that the site is treated as reliable by other reliable sources. For BirthMoviesDeath.com the contact page says "contact the moderators" and "pitch a story" which makes it seem at least partly user-contributed. I think we need a bit more evidence there. Any more thoughts on theroarbots.com? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Roar Bots appears to be a blog with multiple users, and since blogs aren't reliable sources, I'm just going to go ahead and remove it. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 7:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed it a few days ago [6]. Armegon (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok then, I forgot to check the article first. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed aintitcool.com as it also appears to be a blog. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The only remaining source question is birthmoviesdeath.com; see my comments just above. Earwig comes up clean except for quotes. Spotchecks:

• FN 25 cites "UA-TV commissioned an English dub from Titra Studios": the source doesn't explicitly say the dub was commissioned nor that it was by Titra; Winckler mentions Titra as the most usual company in a response about the industry, not about this show.

  This has been removed. Armegon (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's another reference to Titra still in the article; I had a look at the source in case that would support putting Titra back in, but it looks like Titra's not mentioned there either. It's "which included the Titra English dub" in the "North America" section. The source just says "classic English dub", so I think we need to cut the word "Titra" unless you can source it elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 5 cites "In November 2020, Tsuburaya Productions and Pony Canyon released a 3.0 HD remaster of the series on Blu-ray titled Ultraman 55th Anniversary Ultraman Archives: Ultraman MovieNEX, suitable for large screen televisions. For this release, EXA Quality Advanced Service were commissioned to remove excess picture noise while retaining the appropriate film grain": technically this only says it will be released in November, though that's a minor point. The source has "was done to remove excess picture noise while leaving the appropriate graininess"; this is insufficiently paraphrased.

  Changed it to Composite technology EXA Quality Advanced Service (EQAS) was used to process the series to remove excess picture noise while retaining an appropriate level of graininess. Armegon (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's still too close; it needs to be completely rephrased so it no longer resembles the original sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 27 cites 'Describing the process, Fernandez said: "I had a Moviola, sometimes a projector, and I’d go back and forth over each line carefully and carefully, building the line to look like English." Fernandez also went on to explain that a greased pencil was used to mark scenes that needed to be dubbed, even if it were only a few lines. A loop of the film would be projected so that the voice actor could memorize his or her lines and see where the scene needed to be dubbed. The voice actors had to wait for a beeping signal before starting, Fernandez explained: "So in the studio you hear “Beep… beep… beep…” then you talk, as if there is a fourth beep. Those beeps are drilled into me. They are two-thirds of a second apart. Later on, the film is reassembled and mixed with the original music and sound effects."': It should be "grease pencil" not "greased pencil"; see our article." The quotes are OK, of course, but the source has "One took a grease pencil and marked the film where it was to be cut for just those few lines" which has been insufficiently paraphrased, and is incorrect in replacing "cut" with "dub", unless I'm misunderstanding the source.

  Fixed this as Fernandez also went on to explain that a grease pencil was used to mark scenes that needed to be cut for specific few lines. Armegon (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be better to just extend the quote to cover this; it's going to be very difficult to rephrase this sufficiently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 33 cites "In July 2019, Mill Creek Entertainment announced that it had acquired most of the franchise library from Tsuburaya Productions through Indigo Entertainment, including 1,100 episodes and 20 films. Mill Creek released the series on Blu-ray and digital on October 15, 2019, in standard and steelbook editions": again this says "will be released" not "was released"; as above I would suggest tweaking the wording to describe the announcement, which would allow you to use the future tense.

  I am absolutely confused here. The Mill Creek Blu-ray was already released back in October 2019, per what the source confirms: Mill Creek Entertainment’s debut releases from this deal will be limited edition SteelBook® complete series releases of ULTRA Q (ウルトラＱ, Urutora Q, 1966) and ULTRAMAN (ウルトラマン　空想特撮シリーズ, Urutoraman Kūsō Tokusatsu Shirīzu, 1966-67) on Blu-ray on October 15, 2019. You want me to add "will be released" despite Mill Creek having already released their Blu-ray 3 years ago? Armegon (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No -- this is an issue that comes up when one uses release announcements to cite dates that are in the past now. You're right, of course we can't pretend that date is in the future, but the source says it was planned for release on that date, not that it was actually released. Lots of things can delay release dates, after all. A standard way around it is to make it clear it was an announcement of a release date. Here we could make it "On July 10, 2019, Mill Creek Entertainment announced that it had acquired most of the franchise library from Tsuburaya Productions through Indigo Entertainment, including 1,100 episodes and 20 films, announced that the series would be released on Blu-ray and digital on October 15, 2019, in standard and steelbook editions". Joining the two sentences attaches the date to the announcement which is what we want, and since we're only talking about what the announcement says, the future tense is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four I've checked, there were two paraphrasing problems and two minor issues. This makes me want to check the offline sources. Can you post the text from Ragone 2007 you're using to support "Haruo Nakajima (who played Godzilla for the first 12 films in the franchise) choreographed all the monsters' battles with Furuya and even played a few monsters, such as Neronga (episode 03) and Jirahs (episode 10). Nakajima also had two cameos, one in episode 24 and one in episode 33 as a police officer" and "Eiji Tsuburaya found the early versions of Ultraman's design to be too alien and sinister and requested that production designer Tohl Narita draft something more benevolent, despite teleplays already being written. Narita took inspiration from classical Greek art, ancient Egypt, the European Renaissance, and Miyamoto Musashi. Tsuburaya and Kinjo added input to each of Narita's new drawings. Ultraman's silver skin symbolized steel from an interstellar rocket and the red lining represented the surface of Mars"? If it's easier, just take screenshots and email them to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's page 117 [7] and page 128 [8]. Armegon (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the first quote above, that looks good except it doesn't cite the monster's names. Can you add a cite, perhaps to the episodes themselves, for the names? For the second quote again there is too much close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-vised the second quote as: Eiji Tsuburaya found the early versions of Ultraman's design to be "too alien and sinister" and requested that production designer Tohl Narita continue drafting additional designs as teleplays were being written concurrently. Narita chose to root Ultraman's design in the Greek concept of cosmos (order and harmony), in contrast to Narita's monster designs for Ultra Q which were rooted in the Greek concept of khaos. Narita also took inspiration from classical Greek art, ancient Egypt, the European Renaissance, and Miyamoto Musashi. Tsuburaya and Kinjo also provided input to Narita's designs. Ultraman's silver skin symbolized steel from an interstellar rocket and the red lining represented the surface of Mars. Armegon (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the first quote, I revised it as "...choreographed all the monsters' battles with Furuya and even played the monsters for episodes three and ten." Armegon (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both are now OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the last two citations have problems, so I would like to request two more. Can you let me see the sources for:

• "Eiji Tsuburaya and writer Tetsuo Kinjo chose to take the barebones idea of Ultra Q about civilians and scientists dealing with monsters and have a group specifically created to deal with monsters and supernatural phenomena as the focus of the new show. The group was tentatively named the "Scientific Investigation Agency" (SIA). Tsuburaya and Kinjo decided to add unused ideas from Ultra Q and the rejected outline Woo."

Here's page 114 [9]. Armegon (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Narita's assistant, Akira Sasaki, sculpted clays, but became concerned about the nose and mouth looking too human. They eventually decided on a brim-like nose that runs from the mouth to the top of the head like a dorsal fin. They also allowed the mouth to be flexible for speech. Early outlines had Ultraman capable of spitting fire and a liquid called "silver iodine", but these ideas were later dropped."

That's from page 117 and I had already provided that one. Here it is again [10]. Armegon (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

• Please note we still need evidence of the reliability of birthmoviesdeath.com

The site is owned by Cinestate according to this article, which is a film production, distribution, and publishing company headquartered in Texas. So I believe it should stay as Cinestate seems to be a reliable source for film information. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 2:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• There is now an uncited sentence at the end of the second paragraph of "Development".

I've added a citation. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 2:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing this GA on too-close paraphrasing. The first ones I checked revealed several errors; the next two I asked for revealed that these last two quotes are too close to the original; the content isn't being rewritten in Wikipedia's own words. I would recommend going through each source and making sure there is no close paraphrasing, but it would be even better to take the material and rephrase it from scratch without trying to take it sentence by sentence from the original, which always makes it harder to avoid close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]