Late Spring is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All right. After a notification on my talk page, I propose we should make a few suggestions to the talk page to comply with WP:MOSFILM and relevant guidelines. Here are a few suggestions:
Hope these help. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tightened the Lead section, changing it from four paragraphs to three.
The Plot section is almost exactly 600 words, well within the recommended 400-700 word range.
I cannot determine from my sources the actual dates of production, just the release date. If this film corresponds to traditional Japanese practice at the time, it was probably filmed just a few months or even weeks before its September 1949 release. As to the music, I intend to add a very short section about it, though there is not much to say. The models you seem to have in mind when you request all this information are recent films in which many production details are routinely publicized, and music scores frequently released as soundtrack albums. This is generally not the case for films of the era of Late Spring, particularly non-US films.
Descriptions of the characters are not at all necessary, as the Plot section summarizes the characters and their relationships quite well, and additional information on major and minor characters (e.g., their relationship to tradition) is also provided later in the article.
I have consolidated the Reception subsections within a "Reception and legacy" section. But "Home media" remains a separate section as it is just home video release information and has nothing to do with the film's critical reception and/or influence. I don't have any box office information for either the film's Japanese or US releases. Again, widely publicizing such box office receipts is a common characteristic of contemporary movies, not those of the late 1940s.
I think the screenshot I have chosen for the infobox conveys the charm of both the film and the leading lady, whereas the poster which was in the infobox previously did not.
I intend to request a Peer Review of the article. Thanks.
Dylanexpert ( talk) 01:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This has a rather long biography of the director in the article considering it is about a film. Why is it necessary to duplicate the Ozu article? Also, it seems a bit ignorant since Yasujiro Ozu was in the Japanese military during WWII. It is not too surprising he didn't make many films during this period. JoshuSasori ( talk) 12:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:External links:
Links normally to be avoided...Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
I apologize for calling these "garbage links" and this was unqualified rudeness on my part, however, "Creative reworkings of the film" are fan material, and I believe I am on solid ground saying they are not suitable links for Wikipedia. JoshuSasori ( talk) 03:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In my humble opinion: If this were more thesis driven, it could easily appear as an academic article. A LOT of work went clearly into writing this. I find it very extensive in summarizing the various discussions about the film, very well structured, extremely useful (e.g. on Japanese cultural background). If I had a say about it I would definitely rank it as a very evolved piece. 178.191.203.222 ( talk) 10:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Dylanexpert, please justify removing all the edits I put in from the Kaneto Shindo book about the writing of the script. It's hardly irrelevant, since Kaneto Shindo was actually there when the script was being written. It's also part of a pattern of your reverting out edits by other people on this article, even when you were clearly told that the material wasn't suitable for Wikipedia (see the discussion above about the creative reworkings). It's starting to look like a bad case of WP:OWN. If you have some justification, then state it; otherwise, please restore the deleted material. JoshuSasori ( talk) 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Just having a look at the peer review, it is a bit interesting.
First why was there no notification of the peer review on the talk page? Again this is looking horribly like WP:OWN by Dylanexpert, who sent the article off for peer review without notifying on the article's talk page.
Secondly, about "shomingeki" and "home drama". The word "shomingeki" is a bit of pseudo-Japanese. In Japanese these films are commonly classified as "ホームドラマ" (Japanification of "home drama"). The word "shomingeki" seems to have some currency as used by Western film scholars. Unfortunately it's utterly ridiculous in the context of this film, since "shomin" means "common people" or "working-class people", and the people in this film are evidently not working class people. I can only guess that the correct and rather accurate name "home drama" is considered not sounding exotic enough for the film scholars. Anyway. JoshuSasori ( talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This article contains a major portion of information that seems unnecessary and should be removed from the article. Sections such as the historical backgrounds and production section contain detailed history of the production company that financed the film as well as detailed biographical information on each of the film's crew members. This seems extremely unnecessary as as the article is about the film and not the people associated with the film and, as such, should focus on the film rather than heavily detailed backgrounds on the people and production companies associated with the film. This information should instead be added to the articles on each of the persons and companies the information pertains to if not already included. When all the major biographical information is removed from the article, there is not a lot of detailed information on the film's production apart from details on the film's censorship. More production information should thus be added to the article. It is really surprising that this article somehow made B class status considering most of the information in it is covers more of the players than the actual film itself and should at least be reassessed regarding this. Hopefully these issues are fixed since this article has more than enough potential to become GA or maybe even FA status.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Late Spring is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All right. After a notification on my talk page, I propose we should make a few suggestions to the talk page to comply with WP:MOSFILM and relevant guidelines. Here are a few suggestions:
Hope these help. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tightened the Lead section, changing it from four paragraphs to three.
The Plot section is almost exactly 600 words, well within the recommended 400-700 word range.
I cannot determine from my sources the actual dates of production, just the release date. If this film corresponds to traditional Japanese practice at the time, it was probably filmed just a few months or even weeks before its September 1949 release. As to the music, I intend to add a very short section about it, though there is not much to say. The models you seem to have in mind when you request all this information are recent films in which many production details are routinely publicized, and music scores frequently released as soundtrack albums. This is generally not the case for films of the era of Late Spring, particularly non-US films.
Descriptions of the characters are not at all necessary, as the Plot section summarizes the characters and their relationships quite well, and additional information on major and minor characters (e.g., their relationship to tradition) is also provided later in the article.
I have consolidated the Reception subsections within a "Reception and legacy" section. But "Home media" remains a separate section as it is just home video release information and has nothing to do with the film's critical reception and/or influence. I don't have any box office information for either the film's Japanese or US releases. Again, widely publicizing such box office receipts is a common characteristic of contemporary movies, not those of the late 1940s.
I think the screenshot I have chosen for the infobox conveys the charm of both the film and the leading lady, whereas the poster which was in the infobox previously did not.
I intend to request a Peer Review of the article. Thanks.
Dylanexpert ( talk) 01:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This has a rather long biography of the director in the article considering it is about a film. Why is it necessary to duplicate the Ozu article? Also, it seems a bit ignorant since Yasujiro Ozu was in the Japanese military during WWII. It is not too surprising he didn't make many films during this period. JoshuSasori ( talk) 12:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:External links:
Links normally to be avoided...Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
I apologize for calling these "garbage links" and this was unqualified rudeness on my part, however, "Creative reworkings of the film" are fan material, and I believe I am on solid ground saying they are not suitable links for Wikipedia. JoshuSasori ( talk) 03:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In my humble opinion: If this were more thesis driven, it could easily appear as an academic article. A LOT of work went clearly into writing this. I find it very extensive in summarizing the various discussions about the film, very well structured, extremely useful (e.g. on Japanese cultural background). If I had a say about it I would definitely rank it as a very evolved piece. 178.191.203.222 ( talk) 10:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Dylanexpert, please justify removing all the edits I put in from the Kaneto Shindo book about the writing of the script. It's hardly irrelevant, since Kaneto Shindo was actually there when the script was being written. It's also part of a pattern of your reverting out edits by other people on this article, even when you were clearly told that the material wasn't suitable for Wikipedia (see the discussion above about the creative reworkings). It's starting to look like a bad case of WP:OWN. If you have some justification, then state it; otherwise, please restore the deleted material. JoshuSasori ( talk) 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Just having a look at the peer review, it is a bit interesting.
First why was there no notification of the peer review on the talk page? Again this is looking horribly like WP:OWN by Dylanexpert, who sent the article off for peer review without notifying on the article's talk page.
Secondly, about "shomingeki" and "home drama". The word "shomingeki" is a bit of pseudo-Japanese. In Japanese these films are commonly classified as "ホームドラマ" (Japanification of "home drama"). The word "shomingeki" seems to have some currency as used by Western film scholars. Unfortunately it's utterly ridiculous in the context of this film, since "shomin" means "common people" or "working-class people", and the people in this film are evidently not working class people. I can only guess that the correct and rather accurate name "home drama" is considered not sounding exotic enough for the film scholars. Anyway. JoshuSasori ( talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This article contains a major portion of information that seems unnecessary and should be removed from the article. Sections such as the historical backgrounds and production section contain detailed history of the production company that financed the film as well as detailed biographical information on each of the film's crew members. This seems extremely unnecessary as as the article is about the film and not the people associated with the film and, as such, should focus on the film rather than heavily detailed backgrounds on the people and production companies associated with the film. This information should instead be added to the articles on each of the persons and companies the information pertains to if not already included. When all the major biographical information is removed from the article, there is not a lot of detailed information on the film's production apart from details on the film's censorship. More production information should thus be added to the article. It is really surprising that this article somehow made B class status considering most of the information in it is covers more of the players than the actual film itself and should at least be reassessed regarding this. Hopefully these issues are fixed since this article has more than enough potential to become GA or maybe even FA status.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)