Talk:King Kong vs. Godzilla/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The poster image is appropriately tagged.

• There are three fair use images, which is a lot; you need outstanding reasons to have that many. I think the best FUR is for the O'Brien painting. The other two seem unnecessary to me: the purification ceremony is just a group of people standing with the monsters -- one wouldn't know it was purification ceremony from the image, so there's no understanding gained from it. The image of Tsuburaya is not much better -- at the scale needed for fair use, the octopus is just a vague blob. I would suggest cutting both of these.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • vantagepointinterviews.com -- per this page it appears to be a one-man operation.

Brett has worked and is involved in various trustworthy publications as I have already stated below, and the site's articles are interviews with people involved in the production of these films so I believe this source should stay. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• • eiga-chirashi.jp

From what I can see, this site falls under the WP:USERGENERATED criteria as unacceptable since it is an archive of materials such as film posters and flyers, and should be removed. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• • jpbox-office.com
  • ld-dvd-bluray.2-d.jp
  • the-numbers.com -- per this page it started as a one-person site, and it's not clear that's ever changed.

The Numbers has generally reliable coverage on box office numbers, and the "about us" article states that the site "started small but had big ambitions", and then goes on to note that "we have achieved and exceeded those objectives", proclaiming that the site is written and updated by more than one individual. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• • historyvortex.org -- seems to be a fan site
  • movies.about.com -- see discussion of about.com at WP:RS/PS
  • g-fan.com
• "Merian C. Cooper was bitterly opposed to the project": suggest making this "Merian C. Cooper, the producer of the 1933 King Kong film, was bitterly opposed to the project"; non-aficionados will have no idea why Cooper's opinion is relevant.
• 'Years later, Honda stated in an interview. "I don't think a monster should ever be a comical character." "The public is more entertained when the great King Kong strikes fear into the hearts of the little characters."' Are these both quotes from Honda? The second one is unattributed.
• " in particular the movies of Toyonobori": should this be "moves" rather than "movies"?
• "Finishing its theatrical run with a total estimated gross of approximately $10,367,650 worldwide." This is not a complete sentence.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one who uploaded those images and the reason was to give the reader a better visual understanding of the production such as Tsuburaya literally creating an effect (the octopus), and to show the suit actors (along with Tsuburaya) to give a visual as to how they were brought to life on film, since almost all of the effects featuring the title characters were done with actors in suits. It was all about giving readers a visual perspective. The inspiration came from a picture of Andy Serkis acting as Kong that appears on the King Kong (2005 film) page.Giantdevilfish (talk)

I understand your argument but I'm afraid I'm not convinced they are necessary for the reader to understand -- that is, that the text cannot convey the same information. If you don't want to remove them, I can ask another editor who is expert on images to take a look, if you like. I could also list this for a second opinion at GAN, but that could take many months. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to add that years ago there was a brief discussion about the images in question here [[1]]. The quote "I think the two production photos are reasonable to include per discussion of what's being stated in the text." refers to the 2 images in question. The other images that were discussed were considered OK to delete. (It was a rerelease poster, the US poster and a comic book cover).Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is helpful, thanks. I'm not convinced myself, but I can see it's not an unreasonable position. I will see if I can ask an image expert to stop by; if no-one has time I'll mark the review as requiring a second opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would tend to agree with removing the purification image, for the reasons expressed by Mike. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for being late, I'm the nominator and didn't expect a review to come this soon anyways. In the case of G-Fan, it is an independent magazine published by Daikaiju Enterprises by professionals, and vantagepointinterviews.com, the site owner Brett Homenick is a professional (IIRC), so I feel these two sources should be retained. These interviews also include interviews with those involved in the production of the film, some of whom are no longer able to be interviewed, so this information can only be found in these sources. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

OK on G-Fan. Can you find something that demonstrates Homenick is a professional in the field? I agree that would probably do it. Any thoughts on the others? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find much on Homenick other than his interviews with people for G-Fan (which is written by professionals) and Vantage Point Interviews, as well as his interviews in trusted publications such as this & this. Anyways, as for the other sources, I think ld-dvd-bluray.2-d.jp should be removed as I have found nothing to prove it isn't an independent-owned site, and I'll leave the others to be talked about someday soon. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I consider jpbox-office.com, historyvortex.org, and movies.about.com to not meet the Reliability criteria of this site, so I am removing them as well as the content using these sites as references. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK -- if you would post a note here when you're through removing them, I'll take another look then. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've removed them. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like historyvortex.com and ld-dvd-bluray.2-d.jp are still in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their all truly gone now. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've struck some other points that are addressed above. It looks like you agree that eiga-chirashi.jp should be removed? It's still in the article. There are also two other points above that you haven't responded to -- the request to remove the purification ceremony picture, and the incomplete sentence. That just leaves the two remaining sources which we're looking at the reliability of. I've posted about these at the RSN and pinged you to that thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]