Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Godzilla Minus One/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2024 [1].

Godzilla Minus One

Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla Minus One is a 2023 monster movie by Takashi Yamazaki that won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects this year. I've put so much effort into improving this article, which was recently promoted to GA, and I believe that it is now viable for FA status. Thanks to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three weeks since I posted this, and I am very disappointed that it has been ignored entirely while every other FA nom has received some attention from reviewers. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because the article has almost 200 references? Is it because it is on a Japanese topic? Is it because it is of something fairly recently released? Is it because I've only ever nominated one article to FA previously? Or is there something I've missed, and you believe is not worth it? Whatever the reason, I am extremely disappointed and a bit frustrated. I will leave this nomination open for one more week and if it hasn't had any attention by then, I will probably revoke it. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand being frustrated and disappointed by this, but I would encourage you to not take it personally. Sometimes, an FAC just does not attract reviewers. Sometimes it is because editors are too busy to do a review or the nomination just gets lost in the shuffle. I would advise either reaching out to editors on their talk page or reviewing other FACs as that would help to get your name out there (and would help other editors who are in a similar position). Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Nineteen-Ninety Four guy

Creature design is wanting and could be fleshed out a bit more into something akin to that in The Thing (1982 film), another FA
On themes and analysis (which should be retitled to "Thematic analysis"), check to see if there are books/dissertations that have already been published about the movie's themes. You can start by searching the The Wikipedia Library, which you should be able to access with your WP account
The coverage on both the Japanese and international receptions are relatively thin and lack unifying themes. All I am discerning as a reader from the international reception section alone is that critics found the film to be the best Godzilla movie yet and essentially better than previous/contemporary works. Okay, but is this really all that is evident? There are 34 reviews indexed on Metacritic alone, but only about 15 individual reviews are cited in the prose. I don't think 41% is good enough. You should cite all 34 reviews and find what critics have largely agreed on besides the fact it's the best Godzilla movie ever; see the Critical reception on The Thing article. Overall this section still does not feel like "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" as per criterion 1c.

It's pointless to support or oppose this nomination, as it didn't get the necessary amount of comments to arrive at either consensus in the first place. In any case, I hope these comments help you somehow in getting you that much-coveted FA status. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully butting in on this a little late. I think some of these pointers are decent. One of the major problems with films of lager scope is keeping the length down to fit Wikipiedia's guidelines. The creature design only needs subtle expansion but not too much. Review section is good and there is no need to cite every single one as that would be excessive. Clearer citations on critics citing it as the best Godzilla film ever would be a little better. Literary sources are tricky as this is a very recent film so I don't see a problem there only if its in reverence to older topics. My suggestion is to make sure the words line up with what the sources say and minor expansion. After that, some copy editing. This is a really good article and not far off from a successful FA review. Much regards and don't give up. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.