Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Late Spring/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 08:58, 12 August 2012 [1].

Late Spring

[edit]

Late Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dylanexpert (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article represents a comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written examination of the critical and scholarly response to the film in question and will be of interest to film buffs and novices alike. Dylanexpert (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some additional comments to make about this article. I feel that too little attention on Wikipedia has been paid to the quality of the writing in Feature Articles. Many Featured Articles are quite well done, but I have read a few Today’s Featured Articles in which the writing was dull or spotty or even plagued by grammatical and other errors. Of course, the primary goal of the editor is to write an article that is factual and comprehensively sourced. But surely the second most-important objective is that it be clearly, smoothly and interestingly written. I have tried to set a high standard for this article, paying particular attention to establishing a unified and readable style, while maintaining a scholarly tone that is cool but not dry.

The article is very long because the scholarly literature on Late Spring in English is particularly rich and because there is almost too much to discuss about this film. That the article is longer than even the largest print encyclopedia would ever allow, however, is missing the point. The fact that this is an Internet encyclopedia, subject to almost limitless growth, allows articles to find, at last, their proper length. My determination that the article be scholarly and comprehensive led me to expand some sections and to contract (or eliminate) others. I believe that this article has “found” its proper size, in a way that a print encyclopedia would never allow. In a sense, the length of the article is a tribute to the innovation in the concept of the encyclopedia represented by Wikipedia.

All the internal links are free of disambiguation problems and all external links are solid.

I’d like to thank all those who offered their constructive suggestions during the Peer Review process. Dylanexpert (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - there are some problems with the article. For example, right at the top it uses a rather weak (almost absurd) reference to a quite likely non-notable website listing it as the eighth most popular Japanese film and the two-hundred and something greatest film - so what? It would be better to use a more reputable source like the BFI critics' poll or directors' poll (and the BFI critics' poll gives it a better rating anyway). The use of this website as a source has long bothered me, but nobody can edit this article without their edits being reverted by Dylanexpert. The article as written doesn't represent a consensus of opinions but only one person's work, since Dylanexpert removes any material from the article which he has not written himself. Also, another problem with the article is the botched peer review which was not announced on the talk page of the article before doing it. Please see the talk page of Late Spring for details. Although the article is comprehensive and represents a huge amount of dedicated work by Dylanexpert, it is built on shaky foundations. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • JoshuSasori's "comment" is in fact an ad hominem attack on this editor, when a cool and objective evaluation of the article is called for. In fact, he completely misunderstands the purpose of the website They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?, which aggregates the results of hundreds of different published lists, including those of highly reputable publications like Sight and Sound, a publication of BFI (which is, by JoshuSasori's own admission, a reputable source). I mentioned in the article that TSPDT cited among the film world individuals who had supported the idea of Late Spring as one of the greatest films ever made, and thus worthy of inclusion in the top 1000 films list, the distinguished critic Jonathan Rosenbaum and the famous director Claire Denis, among others. One can argue, perhaps, with TSPDT's ranking methodology, but one cannot question the wide range of published sources upon which they draw. It is by no means a subjective list of TSPDT's editors' own favorite films! Therefore, it is not "shaky" at all and should stand. I do not delete everything others add, but have very solid reasons for judging the texts that I delete to be unsuitable. In fact, one of JoshuSasori's editorial additions that I deleted was, in fact, the exact text specifically objected to by one of my peer reviewers, who agreed with me that the passage was irrelevant. I don't delete passages just because I didn't write them. Also, I literally don't understand his objections to my peer review process. He has never pointed out any Wikipedia rules on Peer Review that I have not followed. I appreciate his mention of my "dedicated work" on the article, but I would insist that he do some "dedicated work" of his own to understand my rationale for employing the sources I use.Dylanexpert (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I don't offer an opinion on whether or not this should be a featured article. I made an error in thinking that Dylanexpert had sent this off for peer review without a notification, which is struck out above. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JoshuSasori, for conceding your error.
  • Comments, especially re WP:WIAFA criterion 4: It's wonderful to see an important film like this come to FAC, and extremely rare that a classic of world cinema gets so much attention on WP. So thank you for working on it, I can tell you've put a great deal of care in and the result is very impressive. That said, I'm struggling to see a justification for its length (or at least, for inclusion of all the material). Despite what you said...I just don't think all of the information needs to be there. Why do we need mini biographies on Ozu and Setsuko Hara, for instance? They have their own biography articles. Some background info and context for the film's production is appropriate, but I wouldn't expect it to be more than, say, 700 words. I also feel that a lot of the "Style" section applies generally to all Ozu films, and a lot of it could/should be transferred to the Ozu article (where the current section on style is unimpressive). In this Late Spring article, each of the subsections give a lot of general info about Ozu's approach, and then just a couple of example of it from the film. So why not put the general info on the Ozu page, thus improving his one considerably, and keep the specific Late Spring stuff there, thus keeping it far more succinct and reader-friendly? The whole of the "Ozu's collaborators" section would be better placed there as well.
  • I do feel bad saying this, since it's obvious you've gone to great lengths to give the reader all the background information they could need. I honestly do appreciate that; for many readers it would be very useful. But for the general reader I think this gives too much information that isn't directly related to the film, and in line with WP:SUMMARY I think it would be better placed in other articles. Your hard work wouldn't be wasted, because a lot of it can go straight to the Ozu page. Your "Biographical" content on Late Spring is currently better than his real biography!
      • I've come to agree basically with your position, with some exceptions. For the "Historical and biographical background" section, and for the "Style" section, I can divide the content between the main Ozu article and this one as you suggested. For the "Narrative, themes and characterization" section, and for the "Interpretations" section, in which all the content relates specifically to Late Spring, I feel no changes need be made. I also don't want to change the Noda and Hara subsections in the "Production" section. These are far from full biographies of these two artists. Rather there is, in both cases, one brief descriptive paragraph on the person, followed by a summary of that person's artistic relationship with Ozu. There is no discussion of their work with other filmmakers, or of their personal lives. In fact, I consider this article to be "about" Setsuko Hara as much as it is about Ozu.
      • It should be noted that moving all that content around will probably be more difficult and time consuming than you suggest, given all the references involved and other factors.Dylanexpert (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I also have to agree with the above editor that use of the TSPDT 1000 list is controversial. It's a great list for film buffs, I refer to it regularly, but the fact is that is has just been assembled by any old average Joe. It's a fansite. It just doesn't fall under the category of "reliable sources", even if it is based on lists from important figures. You just need to directly reference those lists (critics who cited Late Spring) instead, and it will pretty much have the same effect. Besides, Late Spring did very well on the recent Sight & Sound poll ([2]), coming in at #15 (ahead of Seven Samurai!), and that is pretty much the most prestigious "film list" there is. So you're more than okay just using that.
  • Can I also add that we don't get much information on the actual filming process? I don't even know when production began or finished. That's a fairly big omission.
    • That's a very good question and I anticipated it. The simple truth is, there has never been a biography in English about Ozu on the order of Stuart Galbraith IV's The Emperor and the Wolf which narrates the production of each of Kurosawa's films in great detail. Also, people, particularly young people, seem to assume about old films that the circumstances of their marketing was the same as today, when the most minute details of a film's production are widely disseminated, and even "The Making of..." mini-documentaries are not uncommon. For most films of the era of Late Spring, particularly in Japan, this is simply not true. So my brief answer to your question about the beginning and ending production dates on the film is... I've no idea, and neither does anybody else with access only to the English-language literature on Ozu (as far as I know it). I'm not allowed by Wikipedia to do original research, and I'm not going to make stuff up, so we'll have to leave those blanks blank. That may be unsatisfactory to you , but there it is. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the writing of the screenplay goes, Noda wrote a book on his collaboration with Ozu, and Kaneto Shindo, who visited the two when they were writing the screenplay for "Late Spring", wrote about the writing of the screenplay in his book. When I added a section on this to the article, you first of all disorganized the reference so that the volume number became the page number, then removed all the material wholesale in an edit where the edit summary gives no clue as to why it was removed. You didn't trim it but completely removed it, so now there is no trace of the information which I'd added to the article. Based on your above response to the comment, I don't think this article is a suitable candidate for featured article status. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article represents a big achievement, almost all of it done by Dylanexpert, who clearly has a vision of what it should be like. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "the best-known master of the shomingeki genre" - source?
  • "Since Yamanaka made films exclusively of the jidaigeki type, Tsumura's statement would seem to indicate that, to this critic and perhaps to others, Ozu had become the preeminent shomingeki director." - source?
  • Some bare URLs
    • I have done a thorough search throughout the entire article and all URLs are enclosed in "ref" tags except those in the Notes, which do not allow embedded ref tags (as I learned from experience) and the external links at the end. Unless you can come up with a URL other than the ones I mentioned, this criticism is not valid. Dylanexpert (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a reliable source
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

This? This?

This? This? This? This? This

  • Most of the web sources have formatting problems
    • This is not helpful. You must be specific about the problems. The web refs come up looking okay in the finished document and not as gobbledygook, which they would do if not coded properly. Dylanexpert (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web sources need publishers
  • Include original citation information for this
  • FN136: author, date?

Oppose - stopping here, significant sourcing cleanup needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - although I would like to see this article become a featured article, it does not meet the stability or neutrality criteria, and it goes into excessive detail on some topics and does not mention others. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very few instances of neutrality problems in the article that have been pointed out to me, I have immediately amended. When you and others objected to the use of the TSPDT list, I agreed and substituted the reference to the BFI list. As for excessive detail, I'm afraid that you yourself offered "excessive detail" when you added that paragraph which literally specified what Ozu and Noda ate for breakfast every morning, and which was also redundant because it merely echoed the substance of Ozu's quote from the paragraph above it. (I'm sorry that I didn't explain in detail my objections to the paragraph when I deleted it, but the Edit Summary, which calls for a brief explanation, is an awkward place to do that.) Another sentence you added about Kaneto Shindo was also objected to by a Peer Reviewer, so I was justified in deleting it. You took the extreme and completely inappropriate step of making a WP:OWN objection to me on the Administrator's Noticeboard, which they quite properly identified as an edit war, not a WP:OWN issue. If there is a stability problem with the article, I think it may be because of your stubbornness. You seem to genuinely appreciate the work I have put into this project, but have a very strange way of showing it. Could you please ask yourself whether your ego may be getting in the way of this article becoming a featured article? Dylanexpert (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Late_Spring/archive1&oldid=1151014324"