Talk:Pulgasari

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pulgasari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Eiga-Kevin2 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Mushy Yank (talk · contribs) 21:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• extras--->link Extra (acting)

  Done

• Toho--->link

  Done

Seems good.

There is a copyvio issue with This article from ScreenAnarchy (2016). Can you fix it by rephrasing some sentences in your own words? was written in August 2016, whereas the similar sentences had been inserted in the WP article in 2013.

Had a look at the history of the Wikipedia article. It appears that ScreenAnarchy plagiarised from here not the other way around but alright I'll rewrite it. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My bad, don't worry then, it might be complicated to rephrase. @Eiga-Kevin2, I'll strike out my note. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC) (Apologies for the false alarm).Reply

Ok, I did notice a lot of sources directly took their info on the film directly from this page and that's why I avoided a few English-language ones btw. When I was rewritting and expanding it a few weeks ago Bounding Into Comics also published an article pretty much taking everything I'd recently added. The author even linked this page a few times. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Rebel Forces-->shouldn't it be /member of the/ Rebel Forces?

  Done

Good.

• Following incarceration for repeated attempts to flee the country, Shin was released in 1983 and forced to work in the North Korean film industry until he and Choi escaped in 1986.--> I would rephrase the first part of the sentence to make sure it is clear. Do we know when/how long he was incarcerated? /Shin was released in 1983/ depending on what is indicated (or not) before, this might be ambiguous (add from jail? maybe) (as one could think he was momentarily free to go back to SK (I understand it would be an absurd interpretation but it seems possible). Maybe use /but/ instead of /and/ (and forced to work in the North Korean).
• Special effects art director Yoshio Suzuki flew to North Korea on April 20-->indicate the year

  Done

• produced films about Kim Il Sung and his family, which had been set up as a temporary-->maybe divide the sentence in 2: produced films about Kim Il Sung and his family; the place had been set up as a temporary

  Done

• Shin told Suzuki his plans to set the film in China during the Three Kingdoms period if the historical research and costumes make it "match up well".--> made it match

  Done

• He also said that he would start filming on August 15-->maybe indicate the year

  Done

• Fischer claimed that Satsuma only spoke to Shin once during production, and asked him whether he would ever return to South Korea, to which Shin replied "It would be too complicated, politically, to go back."-->Shin once during production, and asked him whether he would ever return to South Korea, to which Shin replied: "It would be too complicated, politically, to go back."

  Done

• Link Post-production

  Done

Seems OK.

• The film's official debut took place at the Kineca Ōmori theater in Tokyo on July 4. --->Add 1998 per source
• Q: can we say it is a premiere, rather, or did you use the for me less evident word debut on purpose because of the 1st screening at Toho Studios, and VHS release?

I used "official premiere" in the lead section already and felt I should use debut for the Distribution section because it fits with the context of the section. I think I've sorted all of your remarks so far by the way. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• link Love, Love, My Love

  Done

• holds the moral rights to the films, the North Korean production company owns the broadcasting rights.-->use past tense for hold/own as verb in the main clause is "concluded"

  Done

Seems Ok.

• Thus on July 22-->Thus, the same year, on July 22/ or add the year because that's a key event

  Done

• Due to its low number of initial attendees, many theaters decided to pull the film within the first week of its release.--> Q: Is the source Schönherr too?

I've added that source to the end of the sentence. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• South Korean reviewers also criticized the acting.-->I can't access the source but I trust it is what is said.
• Link Film Threat (also in the ref)

  Done

• "most memorable work in my long acting career"-->"most memorable work in [his] long acting career", per MOS.

  Done

• However, Shin disputed interpretations that the film has commentary on North Korea's contemporary class conflict.--> rejected the interpretations that assumed the film may have conveyed any message regarding..., , or something like that, maybe (I would change the verbs; and past tense should be used in the subordinate clause)
• In 2005, he said that the film is instead a plea for pacifism--->In 2005, he said that the film was rather a plea for pacifism

  Done

• quoted Shin saying "It was a pure monster film, I didn’t put any ideology in it".---> quoted Shin saying: "It was a pure monster film, I didn’t put any ideology in it.", might be clearer per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT and MOS:INOROUT

  Done

• "caused me a big financial loss"-->"caused [him] a big financial loss" per MOS:BRACKET

  Done

• In the years following its US premiere-->in 2001, correct? Maybe a reminder would not hurt.

  Done

Good choice.

Elegant choices.

Seems all good (Note: I could not verify the previewed text of the GBooks refs but the refs work.)

Some of the previews are unavailable now for some reason. Fortunately, I anticipated that and got some of the text from those sources. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No pb.

*  On hold until suggestions, or questions can be replied to.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• All suggestions implemented . For the rest, the article is well-written, understandable, and neutral, extremely well-documented, and presenting reliable sources with no copyright issues, neither for the text nor for the images. It is broad in its coverage, allowing a complete and thorough approach of all the aspects of the film; the article is well-focused and offers a clear structure, which is well summarised in the good lead section. The article history confirms it is stable. It is also reasonably illustrated.

Verdict: pass , and yet another remarkable achievement by User:Eiga-Kevin2 and the project, if I may express my personal opinion upon this work.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply