Wikipedia:Peer review/Ran (film)/archive1

Ran (film)

Ran is a film by famed Japanese film director Akira Kurosawa. It follows the fall of an aging warlord who decides to abdicate as ruler in favor of his three sons. His kingdom slowly disintegrates, as each son jockies for power, murdering their rivals and laying waste to the land. The film is one of my favorites and I would eventually like to nominate it for FA status. I'm still fleshing out the "Themes" section, so cut me a little slack there. :) As always, comments and criticisms are more than welcome. Palm_Dogg 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oh dear, where to begin:
  1. too many fair use images with no given rationale for inclusion. rationale's now added
  2. why two seperate sections with spoilers? cant these be combined? now makes sense, retracted.
  3. background section has much that doesnt belong in this article... most of it belongs in Akira Kurosawa section clarified, makes sense now.
  4. production and cast sections are kinda brief for something trying to gain FA. perhaps a merge of the data in Characters in Ran (film) could be useful here?
  5. Themes section has only one subheading Warfare.... why bother having this section then? was work in progress, retracted.
  6. reception and awards gets a brief mention. and the imdb page for the movie list quite a few award nominations: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089881/awards
  7. its similarity to King Lear is only mentioned in brief passing. A direct comparison of the two would be nice. very good comparison that resolves this issue added.
  8. if its in the footnotes section, it doesnt need rementioning in references, you have several in both. sorted out.
• thats all I can think of for now.  ALKIVAR™ 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are my responses, point by point.

• 1. Have added basic "fair use" tags and rationales. Will try and flesh these out.
  2. No, the "Themes" and "Plot" sections are too big to be combined.
  3. Some critics think "Ran" contains some autobiographical elements from Kurosawa's life. Added a quote to help explain this.
  4. Yeah, I've got to expand this.
  5. As mentioned above, I'm still adding to it.
  6. I didn't see any really interesting awards besides Oscars, but I don't know enough about the film industry. Were there any you think should be included? How's that?
  7. I originally wasn't going to do this, but I'll try and fit in at least a paragraph. Done.
  8. I've heard others say differently. Do you think I should just merge the two sections?

Thanks for your comments. Palm_Dogg 08:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Item 8, I am not saying combine footnotes and references, I am just saying for Site A pick one either footnote (if so used) or references (if not cited and only used generally for information). No item should be in both. I've gone through and corrected it since you didnt seem to understand what I meant. If you have questions... feel free to ask.  ALKIVAR™ 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)