![]() | Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 25, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 20, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What the heck does that mean? 71.218.215.61 ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Trying to convince them to fight against Ghidorah, the Mothra larva first sprays Godzilla in the face with "threads" and Rodan seems to be laughing, then when Rodan gets the treatment next, it looks like Godzilla sits down on a rock and laughs 83.37.123.24 ( talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC))
I've removed the US poster. It's a cool addition to the article, but to use copywritten images, we need state why we are showing it. If we can answer the question "what is this image showing that can't be explained in prose?" in the article, than we can probably bring it back. Otherwise, I'd suggest leaving it out for now. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 05:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Per my previous edit, I'm removed content that is actively against the rules. (my bad on MOS:FILM, but more specifically) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states " does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere.". In short, these extra cast members lack context. Why is it important to know these credits? I've re-posted this to the talk page. if you want to discuss further. Without that information, details on crew members who don't even have their own Wikipedia articles is not useful for most readers. I'm happy to discuss if I'm missing some bigger picture here. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 10:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Per my initial removal of the section, MOS:FILM does actually mention we should avoid these kind of details. In WP:FILMPRODUCTION, which states that we attempt "to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process." What information is being gleamed here from these extra details? I find this different than a cast section which is reflected from character's on screen presence which would be far more relevant to general audiences. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 10:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Crew lists are not common, but it does not mean that they are not appropriate. If anything, they can be a good way to identify additional crew members based on the nature of the film, like dance choreographers for some types of films. I actually think the crew list should cover the infobox credits as well as the other names because per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "...to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." For example, the "Starring" field is a subset of the "Cast" section. The infobox's crew fields can be a subset of the fuller "Crew" section in the article body. I don't think crew lists are as necessary if there are no blue links, but we do have some blue links here (and would have more if we included the main crew). And if possible, we should see if any of the non-linked names could actually be red links to encourage article creation. Ultimately, there's nothing explicitly for or against such crew sections in film articles, so arguments can be made on a case-by-case basis. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Erik also said “Crew lists are not common, but it does not mean that they are not appropriate. If anything, they can be a good way to identify additional crew members based on the nature of the film”. Like I said before, since it is an effects driven film, I added FX crew that were as essential as the infobox crew based on the nature of the film, as Erik suggested. Erik also said “Ultimately, there's nothing explicitly for or against such crew sections in film articles”. So on what criteria are we basing what should remain or be removed? There are no guidelines that prohibit a crew list or how it’s currently listed. If red/blue links are the issue, I wouldn’t oppose adding some crew from the infobox to balance blue/red links. One additional importance is that the crew list could serve as a broad summary of what’s covered in prose, should readers feel to lazy to read. If it works for the lead, why not this? The lead can’t cover all crew lists after all. Armegon ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Erik:, you know more about WikiFilmProject than I do, does this consensus need to be added to MOS:FILM to justify adding film crews to any film article, and does Andrzejbanas' disagreement derail that same consensus, despite the timeframe and overwhelming support in favor of crew lists? Armegon ( talk) 05:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
To revisit this, the list of crew credits is based on the book Japan's Favorite Mon-Star: The Unauthorized Biography of the Big G. I was curious to look elsewhere to see what crew credits are shown. At AFI, beyond the film infobox credits, the art director, sound effects, and special effects personnel are listed. In The Toho Studios Story, for this film, the crew credits are shown here. This does not mean all these crew names should be listed -- the cast credits section afterward seems to pretty much list all of the cast members. Regardless, we can see that the special effects director and art director and lighting and sound are near the top. This is the kind of "rule of thumb" I mean that we should consider for crew lists. Maybe some overlap or combination of these would work. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The poster image has a suitable FUR.
The article needs copyediting before it can pass GA. Some more examples: "a replacement was need"; "partnered up"; and "rapidly edited explosions". In addition to copyediting for this kind of basic error, it also needs a higher-level copyedit to assemble the material in a readable way. The prose style is almost all short sentences that are non sequiturs; the bar for prose at GA only requires it to be clear, not confusing, and grammatically correct, but this is below that level. The first paragraph of the "Special effects" section is a good example of the problem; if you can get someone else to copyedit it I would point them at that paragraph as an example of what needs fixing. Unfortunately I think this is too far from meeting the criteria for GA to fix while under review, so I am failing it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Eiga-Kevin2, Armegon, to nominate this article for GA again you need to just follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I, and paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Film}} at the top of this talk page. A bot will take care of transforming that to the right format for a second review. When you reverted to the old version, it just reactivated the old failed review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll get a review posted in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Prose:
resulting in them losing their abilities with the exception of predictions.– Rewrite this so it reads better and it's clearer what it means.
Continental boasted to Variety– "Boasted" is probably too strong of a word. I see that it was lifted directly from the source.
In a contemporary review of a double-bill between this film and Harum Scarum... – This is a long run-on sentence. Sentences like this appear throughout the article, where it's hard to tell when one idea ends and the next begins.
Spot checks:
The film became the fourth highest-grossing film of the 1964–1965 season in Japan– Watch for close paraphrasing.
Honda felt "uncomfortable"... – This is cited to p. 215, but much of the info is on 214.
Months after the film's Japanese release, the film was acquired by Walter Reade-Sterling, Inc., with plans to distribute the film in the United States through their subsidiary, Continental Distributing.– Is this supposed to be connected to this citation?
The dubbing of the American version was supervised by Joseph Belucci and runs at 85 minutes.– It's not clear which page supports which statement.
who spent hours hunched over inside the costume, holding onto a crossbar for support– This entire sentence is ripped almost word-for-word from the source.
It took longer to film the Ghidorah scenes because– Another near-exact copy.
Still under contract by Toho, Haruo Nakajima was assigned to reprise his role as Godzilla, having already performed the strenuous suitmation performance for the first four Godzilla films.– This entire paragraph includes a bunch of information that is not supported by the source.
Covers plot, cast, production, release, and reception. There is very little coverage of the film's themes or of any significant literary analysis.
No apparent neutrality issues.
No recent disputes in the history or on the talk page.
The film poster is under copyright in the United States and should probably have a non-free use rationale, as Wikipedia's servers are hosted in the United States.
![]() | Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 25, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 20, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What the heck does that mean? 71.218.215.61 ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Trying to convince them to fight against Ghidorah, the Mothra larva first sprays Godzilla in the face with "threads" and Rodan seems to be laughing, then when Rodan gets the treatment next, it looks like Godzilla sits down on a rock and laughs 83.37.123.24 ( talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC))
I've removed the US poster. It's a cool addition to the article, but to use copywritten images, we need state why we are showing it. If we can answer the question "what is this image showing that can't be explained in prose?" in the article, than we can probably bring it back. Otherwise, I'd suggest leaving it out for now. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 05:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Per my previous edit, I'm removed content that is actively against the rules. (my bad on MOS:FILM, but more specifically) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states " does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere.". In short, these extra cast members lack context. Why is it important to know these credits? I've re-posted this to the talk page. if you want to discuss further. Without that information, details on crew members who don't even have their own Wikipedia articles is not useful for most readers. I'm happy to discuss if I'm missing some bigger picture here. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 10:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Per my initial removal of the section, MOS:FILM does actually mention we should avoid these kind of details. In WP:FILMPRODUCTION, which states that we attempt "to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process." What information is being gleamed here from these extra details? I find this different than a cast section which is reflected from character's on screen presence which would be far more relevant to general audiences. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 10:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Crew lists are not common, but it does not mean that they are not appropriate. If anything, they can be a good way to identify additional crew members based on the nature of the film, like dance choreographers for some types of films. I actually think the crew list should cover the infobox credits as well as the other names because per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "...to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." For example, the "Starring" field is a subset of the "Cast" section. The infobox's crew fields can be a subset of the fuller "Crew" section in the article body. I don't think crew lists are as necessary if there are no blue links, but we do have some blue links here (and would have more if we included the main crew). And if possible, we should see if any of the non-linked names could actually be red links to encourage article creation. Ultimately, there's nothing explicitly for or against such crew sections in film articles, so arguments can be made on a case-by-case basis. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Erik also said “Crew lists are not common, but it does not mean that they are not appropriate. If anything, they can be a good way to identify additional crew members based on the nature of the film”. Like I said before, since it is an effects driven film, I added FX crew that were as essential as the infobox crew based on the nature of the film, as Erik suggested. Erik also said “Ultimately, there's nothing explicitly for or against such crew sections in film articles”. So on what criteria are we basing what should remain or be removed? There are no guidelines that prohibit a crew list or how it’s currently listed. If red/blue links are the issue, I wouldn’t oppose adding some crew from the infobox to balance blue/red links. One additional importance is that the crew list could serve as a broad summary of what’s covered in prose, should readers feel to lazy to read. If it works for the lead, why not this? The lead can’t cover all crew lists after all. Armegon ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Erik:, you know more about WikiFilmProject than I do, does this consensus need to be added to MOS:FILM to justify adding film crews to any film article, and does Andrzejbanas' disagreement derail that same consensus, despite the timeframe and overwhelming support in favor of crew lists? Armegon ( talk) 05:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
To revisit this, the list of crew credits is based on the book Japan's Favorite Mon-Star: The Unauthorized Biography of the Big G. I was curious to look elsewhere to see what crew credits are shown. At AFI, beyond the film infobox credits, the art director, sound effects, and special effects personnel are listed. In The Toho Studios Story, for this film, the crew credits are shown here. This does not mean all these crew names should be listed -- the cast credits section afterward seems to pretty much list all of the cast members. Regardless, we can see that the special effects director and art director and lighting and sound are near the top. This is the kind of "rule of thumb" I mean that we should consider for crew lists. Maybe some overlap or combination of these would work. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The poster image has a suitable FUR.
The article needs copyediting before it can pass GA. Some more examples: "a replacement was need"; "partnered up"; and "rapidly edited explosions". In addition to copyediting for this kind of basic error, it also needs a higher-level copyedit to assemble the material in a readable way. The prose style is almost all short sentences that are non sequiturs; the bar for prose at GA only requires it to be clear, not confusing, and grammatically correct, but this is below that level. The first paragraph of the "Special effects" section is a good example of the problem; if you can get someone else to copyedit it I would point them at that paragraph as an example of what needs fixing. Unfortunately I think this is too far from meeting the criteria for GA to fix while under review, so I am failing it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Eiga-Kevin2, Armegon, to nominate this article for GA again you need to just follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I, and paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Film}} at the top of this talk page. A bot will take care of transforming that to the right format for a second review. When you reverted to the old version, it just reactivated the old failed review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll get a review posted in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Prose:
resulting in them losing their abilities with the exception of predictions.– Rewrite this so it reads better and it's clearer what it means.
Continental boasted to Variety– "Boasted" is probably too strong of a word. I see that it was lifted directly from the source.
In a contemporary review of a double-bill between this film and Harum Scarum... – This is a long run-on sentence. Sentences like this appear throughout the article, where it's hard to tell when one idea ends and the next begins.
Spot checks:
The film became the fourth highest-grossing film of the 1964–1965 season in Japan– Watch for close paraphrasing.
Honda felt "uncomfortable"... – This is cited to p. 215, but much of the info is on 214.
Months after the film's Japanese release, the film was acquired by Walter Reade-Sterling, Inc., with plans to distribute the film in the United States through their subsidiary, Continental Distributing.– Is this supposed to be connected to this citation?
The dubbing of the American version was supervised by Joseph Belucci and runs at 85 minutes.– It's not clear which page supports which statement.
who spent hours hunched over inside the costume, holding onto a crossbar for support– This entire sentence is ripped almost word-for-word from the source.
It took longer to film the Ghidorah scenes because– Another near-exact copy.
Still under contract by Toho, Haruo Nakajima was assigned to reprise his role as Godzilla, having already performed the strenuous suitmation performance for the first four Godzilla films.– This entire paragraph includes a bunch of information that is not supported by the source.
Covers plot, cast, production, release, and reception. There is very little coverage of the film's themes or of any significant literary analysis.
No apparent neutrality issues.
No recent disputes in the history or on the talk page.
The film poster is under copyright in the United States and should probably have a non-free use rationale, as Wikipedia's servers are hosted in the United States.