This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ugetsu was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?
The name of the manor in the film isn't Wakasa Manor; that's the noblewoman's personal name. I can't recall the name of the manor itself just now, but I'll try to remember to check it tomorrow. In the meantime, if I forget, someone else may know what to correct it to. 24.145.132.195 ( talk) 05:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit contains a false reference to "May Tossier". I cannot locate such a person. The other contents of the edit may also be a clever hoax. Can anyone check this against the Wakeman/McDonald books? Thanks. JoshuSasori ( talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: recent move contested; reverted -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Ugetsu (film) → Ugetsu – This is the primary topic for "ugetsu". JoshuSasori ( talk) 02:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ugetsu → Ugetsu (film) – This film bears the same name as the much better-known book on which it is based, and the book is overwhelmingly more notable than the film version. Google Books search for the word Ugetsu in English without Mizoguchi (the name of the film's director), brings up 16,800 hits [1] and a similar search without the book's author brings up slightly fewer results [2] in English. This despite this film being disproportionately famous, in relation to the source material, in English-speaking countries. However, when one takes into account results in the original language of both the book and the film, results that don't mention the director [3] are more than twice as frequent as those that don't mention the book's author [4]. (I'm not sure why, but most of the hits in the second seem to actually mention Akinari anyway, and several are written by him.) Additionally, since the film states at the start of its opening credits that it is "Based on Ugetsu Monogatari by Ueda Akinari", it is safe to assume that everyone who has seen the film has at least heard of the book, but not necessarily vice versa. Neither work is known to the majority of people in the English-speaking world (the book is known to the majority of Japanese people, but the film isn't). Only film buffs who have gone out of their way to see this film know about it -- and those people are likely to already be aware that it is based on a book. elvenscout742 ( talk) 01:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I may be a little late to save this RM, but I just noticed that the article Harusame Monogatari is an example of an English-language text on Wikipedia that uses "Ugetsu" to refer specifically to the book. The sad thing is that JoshuSasori, who led the "no-move" side, has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing me on this and other articles... elvenscout742 ( talk) 06:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Until yesterday, this film was classified as being more important to Wikipedia's coverage of things Japanese than the book on which it is based, which is absolutely ridiculous. I tried to change the importance to "Mid" [9] since it seemed reasonable to me that neither should be "High" or "Top", but the book should be at least as high as, if not higher than, the film. I was reverted almost immediately [10], and no explanation was offered why this film should be more important than its source material. In order to resolve the relative discrepancy between book and film in the least confrontational way possible, I changed the status of the book [11]. Now, however, both the film and the book are too high, as demonstrated by the book outranking similarly well-known works of Edo period prose and drama such as Nansō Satomi Hakkenden, Chūshingura and The Love Suicides at Sonezaki (all Mid) and matching Oku no Hosomichi, which is by far the best-known work of Edo literature, period.
I can understand that this film is considered an important work of world cinema outside Japan, but WikiProject Japan's importance scale is for the articles' relative importance when it comes to Wikipedia's coverage of things Japanese. Almost no one in Japan (other than film buffs and people over 80) has even heard of this film, where the book's name is known to everyone who graduated high school. This film is already considered "Core" on WikiProject Film, so why does it need an inexplicably high ranking on WikiProject Japan as well?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 04:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I inserted an analysis of the word Ugetsu: from the kango roots u 'rain' and getsu 'moon' (inferred from the kanji shown). This was reverted as "rather misplaced". Does that mean it shouldn't be in the article at all, or only that a paragraph about the writing is not the right place for it? I think there ought to be some explicit statement of how Ugetsu monogatari corresponds to Tales of Moonlight and Rain. — Tamfang ( talk) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
How does one commercial Blu-ray release make the title "official" for two whole countries? I take back what I said about Elven moving the article out of boredom- he has demonstrated he's quite hellbent on tearing this movie down. Ribbet32 ( talk) 15:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been reverted several times by two different users on this. I now need to provide my justification here for what should have been an uncontroversial edit.
The film is officially licensed for distribution in the UK and Ireland by Eureka. They released the film on DVD under the title Ugetsu Monogatari [12] and then later re-released it on Blu-Ray under the same title. [13] In this, they are following the usage of the BFI, the previous distributor of the film on VHS [14] [15]
The film does not appear to have been referred to as Ugetsu (without the second word) in official British or Irish sources since at least 1998. PLEASE do not remove this again: Ugetsu is the American title; Ugetsu Monogatari is the British title.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I thought I could get this through peacefully with logical debate and reasoning, without having to rely on MOS, etc. My change has stood for a few hours and it looks like this might be over, but I should probably point out for posterity that WP:NCF is very clearly on my side here:
elvenscout742 (
talk)
07:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In accordance with a recommendation that was made in the peer review, I have added some more information to the article. This edit may be fairly poor prose, as I was translating/summarizing Sato's words, and he writes in these long, rambling Japanese sentences. This edit, on the other, may not belong, as it clutters up the section on "Accolades". It's a nice bit of trivia, but I wasn't sure how to blend it properly with the article. elvenscout742 ( talk) 04:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone tell us which of the nine tales in the original book this story is taken from? Some of the tales have a synopsis and some just a title. /info/en/?search=Ugetsu_Monogatari Grandma Roses ( talk) 01:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ssven2 ( talk · contribs) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article. Thank you. —
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid
09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ Ribbet32: Congratulations! Mizoguchi's masterpiece has passed. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ugetsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ugetsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: First off, I must apologize for giving the impression of SHOUTING. As I explaijed in my most recent edit summary, this was not my intention. I meant only to emphasize those words, in a manner similar to this, and assumed that given the context it would be obvious that communicating in an angry, shouting manner (to who?) was not the purpose.
Anyway, the film says nothing about either the late sixteenth century or the sixteenth century; it just says the Sengoku period. If you want to give a more specific date, presumably based on obscure details and historical analysis or possibly comparison with the original work, then you need a reliable secondary source; doing so without a citation, implicitly based on the film itself, is a violation of WP:NOR. There is also nothing in WP:FILMPLOT that bans citations of secondary sources; rather it implicitly encourages them in cases like this where a detail we want to write in our summary is not clear from the film itself.
It is also not sufficient to replace an original extrapolation that is probably false ("late 16th century") with an original extrapolation that has a significantly higher probability of being accurate ("16th century") but still is not sourced.
Anyway, what do you think of just replacing it with "Sengoku period" with a wikilink, as I have just done?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't sit well with me: it's essentially just advertising for the two current licensed distributors in the major Anglophone regions, and includes no information on home media release either (a) in Japan or (b) before 2005, which reeks of WP:SYSTEMIC and WP:RECENT respectively. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The original review was insufficient and should probably be undone. Some examples of problems that were missed despite being present in the reviewed version include:
The OR and copyvio image should have been autofail material, and the lack of anything beyond a superficial illusion of stability (the nominator was involved in an edit war over the page back in 2013, [25] the page saw only fairly minor tweaks in the four years thence, [26] and the nominator alluded to the edit warring when they returned to the page a few days before nominating their version of the page for GA [27] [28]) is also concerning.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the pastI've written literally hundreds of articles on Japanese culture topics, almost none of them less than 3kB in length, so even if your sticking a jab at my article creation/expansion in were not off-topic it would be simply wrong. On top of that, this has nothing to do with "bad blood": your expansion made the article worse, not better, and the GA review that followed immediately after should have noticed this.
It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk.I appealed my TBAN almost a year ago, and I have just been gradually noticing the problems with this article since last December; I have no idea what that could have to do with any of this.
The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago.Umm ... he got himself banned (without even any direct involvement on my part -- I had already left the project because of his harassment, which in turn was after my change of username), but continued to harass me for years after that. Nothing inexplicable about it: you criticized me for OR (same as he always did), when in fact you were the one engaging in OR (same as he always did); but what any of that has to do with the good article criteria I do not know.
The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited.Yeah, I fixed some of them (with not-insignificant opposition from you), but they should not have been there in the first place. The original GA reviewer either passed the article because of the content that should not have been there but missed the problems (the current article includes en entire section called "Legacy" that is only four short sentences), or didn't care to check closely enough that the article had these problems; unless there is community consensus that the article, despite these problems with the initial review, still happens to meet the criteria by accident now that I have fixed the few that I noticed, it should be delisted.
Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore.Your battleground mentality is showing through; can we please focus on content? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic response to off-topic "you're holding a grudge against me" accusation. Posting here only because it kinda needs to be addressed and I'm pretty sure I'm not welcome on Ribbet32's talk page.
|
---|
|
Leaving the past aside, as the page stands right now Hijiri88 which of the GA Criterion, listed below, do you feel that the page doesn't satisfy? I'm having some trouble seperating past issues that you've already corrected with those that you think remain. I'm hoping then there can be a discussion about the state of the article meeting those criteria and/or action taken to bring the article up to GA standard. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The article still does contain a bit of OR that I missed; I don't want to remove it, though, because it's probably
WP:TRUE and verifiable, but not currently verified, which is a problem.
|
---|
|
The article gave the impression of being broad during the initial review, but with the OR gone this is not the case.
|
---|
|
Does ignoring the film's reputation in its native country count as "non-neutral"? If it doesn't then I guess this can be lumped into the above.
|
---|
|
Stability is an illusion.
|
---|
|
So I have finished creating threads for areas identified as concerns. Some of the concerns do seem valid but also seem fixable by interested editors (perhaps Hijiri88 or Ribbet32. It would seem like a shame to delist given what seem like resolvable issues. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have always viewed this criteria narrowly. There is either edit warring or there isn't. The claim here is actually one of WP:OWN By definition Good Articles have room for improvement and so a claim of WP:STEWARDSHIP is going to be weaker than with a FA. Regardless of whether Ribbet32 liked the changes that the three different multi-edit editors have made since January there has been no revision and Ribbet has been active the whole time on Wikipedia. Since this is a talk page discussion it strikes me as completely with-in WP:CONSENSUS to express disagreement about content. In the end I just can't see issues with this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This seems like the best claim of a shortfall for GA status but also fixable. Are there sources which can be found to remedy? While I am not ignorant of Japanese film (especially of this era) it feels like other editors would be better positioned to find high quality sources to add context. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I admit that spelling/grammar proofreading isn't my strongest area as an editor but I'm not seeing any issues with the article in this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This is tied into 3a but does concern me given current composition of the article. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have added (with citations) the previously common English title Tales of a Pale and Mysterious Moon After the Rain. This appears to be a mistake for Tales of a Pale and Misty Moon After the Rain, perhaps originating from Bosley Crowther's review in The New York Times ( 8 Sep 1954 p. 40) which concludes 'We understand that "Ugetsu" means "pale and mysterious moon after the rain"—which is just about as revealing as a great deal else in this film.' If someone can find a source to confirm that, it would be worth adding as a footnote. jnestorius( talk) 14:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ugetsu was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?
The name of the manor in the film isn't Wakasa Manor; that's the noblewoman's personal name. I can't recall the name of the manor itself just now, but I'll try to remember to check it tomorrow. In the meantime, if I forget, someone else may know what to correct it to. 24.145.132.195 ( talk) 05:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit contains a false reference to "May Tossier". I cannot locate such a person. The other contents of the edit may also be a clever hoax. Can anyone check this against the Wakeman/McDonald books? Thanks. JoshuSasori ( talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: recent move contested; reverted -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Ugetsu (film) → Ugetsu – This is the primary topic for "ugetsu". JoshuSasori ( talk) 02:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ugetsu → Ugetsu (film) – This film bears the same name as the much better-known book on which it is based, and the book is overwhelmingly more notable than the film version. Google Books search for the word Ugetsu in English without Mizoguchi (the name of the film's director), brings up 16,800 hits [1] and a similar search without the book's author brings up slightly fewer results [2] in English. This despite this film being disproportionately famous, in relation to the source material, in English-speaking countries. However, when one takes into account results in the original language of both the book and the film, results that don't mention the director [3] are more than twice as frequent as those that don't mention the book's author [4]. (I'm not sure why, but most of the hits in the second seem to actually mention Akinari anyway, and several are written by him.) Additionally, since the film states at the start of its opening credits that it is "Based on Ugetsu Monogatari by Ueda Akinari", it is safe to assume that everyone who has seen the film has at least heard of the book, but not necessarily vice versa. Neither work is known to the majority of people in the English-speaking world (the book is known to the majority of Japanese people, but the film isn't). Only film buffs who have gone out of their way to see this film know about it -- and those people are likely to already be aware that it is based on a book. elvenscout742 ( talk) 01:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I may be a little late to save this RM, but I just noticed that the article Harusame Monogatari is an example of an English-language text on Wikipedia that uses "Ugetsu" to refer specifically to the book. The sad thing is that JoshuSasori, who led the "no-move" side, has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing me on this and other articles... elvenscout742 ( talk) 06:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Until yesterday, this film was classified as being more important to Wikipedia's coverage of things Japanese than the book on which it is based, which is absolutely ridiculous. I tried to change the importance to "Mid" [9] since it seemed reasonable to me that neither should be "High" or "Top", but the book should be at least as high as, if not higher than, the film. I was reverted almost immediately [10], and no explanation was offered why this film should be more important than its source material. In order to resolve the relative discrepancy between book and film in the least confrontational way possible, I changed the status of the book [11]. Now, however, both the film and the book are too high, as demonstrated by the book outranking similarly well-known works of Edo period prose and drama such as Nansō Satomi Hakkenden, Chūshingura and The Love Suicides at Sonezaki (all Mid) and matching Oku no Hosomichi, which is by far the best-known work of Edo literature, period.
I can understand that this film is considered an important work of world cinema outside Japan, but WikiProject Japan's importance scale is for the articles' relative importance when it comes to Wikipedia's coverage of things Japanese. Almost no one in Japan (other than film buffs and people over 80) has even heard of this film, where the book's name is known to everyone who graduated high school. This film is already considered "Core" on WikiProject Film, so why does it need an inexplicably high ranking on WikiProject Japan as well?
elvenscout742 ( talk) 04:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I inserted an analysis of the word Ugetsu: from the kango roots u 'rain' and getsu 'moon' (inferred from the kanji shown). This was reverted as "rather misplaced". Does that mean it shouldn't be in the article at all, or only that a paragraph about the writing is not the right place for it? I think there ought to be some explicit statement of how Ugetsu monogatari corresponds to Tales of Moonlight and Rain. — Tamfang ( talk) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
How does one commercial Blu-ray release make the title "official" for two whole countries? I take back what I said about Elven moving the article out of boredom- he has demonstrated he's quite hellbent on tearing this movie down. Ribbet32 ( talk) 15:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been reverted several times by two different users on this. I now need to provide my justification here for what should have been an uncontroversial edit.
The film is officially licensed for distribution in the UK and Ireland by Eureka. They released the film on DVD under the title Ugetsu Monogatari [12] and then later re-released it on Blu-Ray under the same title. [13] In this, they are following the usage of the BFI, the previous distributor of the film on VHS [14] [15]
The film does not appear to have been referred to as Ugetsu (without the second word) in official British or Irish sources since at least 1998. PLEASE do not remove this again: Ugetsu is the American title; Ugetsu Monogatari is the British title.
elvenscout742 ( talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I thought I could get this through peacefully with logical debate and reasoning, without having to rely on MOS, etc. My change has stood for a few hours and it looks like this might be over, but I should probably point out for posterity that WP:NCF is very clearly on my side here:
elvenscout742 (
talk)
07:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In accordance with a recommendation that was made in the peer review, I have added some more information to the article. This edit may be fairly poor prose, as I was translating/summarizing Sato's words, and he writes in these long, rambling Japanese sentences. This edit, on the other, may not belong, as it clutters up the section on "Accolades". It's a nice bit of trivia, but I wasn't sure how to blend it properly with the article. elvenscout742 ( talk) 04:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Can someone tell us which of the nine tales in the original book this story is taken from? Some of the tales have a synopsis and some just a title. /info/en/?search=Ugetsu_Monogatari Grandma Roses ( talk) 01:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ssven2 ( talk · contribs) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article. Thank you. —
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid
09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ Ribbet32: Congratulations! Mizoguchi's masterpiece has passed. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ugetsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ugetsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: First off, I must apologize for giving the impression of SHOUTING. As I explaijed in my most recent edit summary, this was not my intention. I meant only to emphasize those words, in a manner similar to this, and assumed that given the context it would be obvious that communicating in an angry, shouting manner (to who?) was not the purpose.
Anyway, the film says nothing about either the late sixteenth century or the sixteenth century; it just says the Sengoku period. If you want to give a more specific date, presumably based on obscure details and historical analysis or possibly comparison with the original work, then you need a reliable secondary source; doing so without a citation, implicitly based on the film itself, is a violation of WP:NOR. There is also nothing in WP:FILMPLOT that bans citations of secondary sources; rather it implicitly encourages them in cases like this where a detail we want to write in our summary is not clear from the film itself.
It is also not sufficient to replace an original extrapolation that is probably false ("late 16th century") with an original extrapolation that has a significantly higher probability of being accurate ("16th century") but still is not sourced.
Anyway, what do you think of just replacing it with "Sengoku period" with a wikilink, as I have just done?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't sit well with me: it's essentially just advertising for the two current licensed distributors in the major Anglophone regions, and includes no information on home media release either (a) in Japan or (b) before 2005, which reeks of WP:SYSTEMIC and WP:RECENT respectively. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The original review was insufficient and should probably be undone. Some examples of problems that were missed despite being present in the reviewed version include:
The OR and copyvio image should have been autofail material, and the lack of anything beyond a superficial illusion of stability (the nominator was involved in an edit war over the page back in 2013, [25] the page saw only fairly minor tweaks in the four years thence, [26] and the nominator alluded to the edit warring when they returned to the page a few days before nominating their version of the page for GA [27] [28]) is also concerning.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I hoped when I endeavoured to expand and reference beyond what the nominator had ever attempted, it was all in the pastI've written literally hundreds of articles on Japanese culture topics, almost none of them less than 3kB in length, so even if your sticking a jab at my article creation/expansion in were not off-topic it would be simply wrong. On top of that, this has nothing to do with "bad blood": your expansion made the article worse, not better, and the GA review that followed immediately after should have noticed this.
It turned out that he was topic banned during the expansion and when that lapsed, he went right back to disrupting the article with verbose complaints on talk.I appealed my TBAN almost a year ago, and I have just been gradually noticing the problems with this article since last December; I have no idea what that could have to do with any of this.
The hints of the old grudge: an inexplicable mention of JoshuSasori, who Hijiri (under his old username Elvenscout) got banned years ago.Umm ... he got himself banned (without even any direct involvement on my part -- I had already left the project because of his harassment, which in turn was after my change of username), but continued to harass me for years after that. Nothing inexplicable about it: you criticized me for OR (same as he always did), when in fact you were the one engaging in OR (same as he always did); but what any of that has to do with the good article criteria I do not know.
The above points are petty since many of them have already been edited.Yeah, I fixed some of them (with not-insignificant opposition from you), but they should not have been there in the first place. The original GA reviewer either passed the article because of the content that should not have been there but missed the problems (the current article includes en entire section called "Legacy" that is only four short sentences), or didn't care to check closely enough that the article had these problems; unless there is community consensus that the article, despite these problems with the initial review, still happens to meet the criteria by accident now that I have fixed the few that I noticed, it should be delisted.
Like I said, I hoped this was all in the past, but I have little faith now that collaborative editing can maintain stability on this article anymore.Your battleground mentality is showing through; can we please focus on content? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic response to off-topic "you're holding a grudge against me" accusation. Posting here only because it kinda needs to be addressed and I'm pretty sure I'm not welcome on Ribbet32's talk page.
|
---|
|
Leaving the past aside, as the page stands right now Hijiri88 which of the GA Criterion, listed below, do you feel that the page doesn't satisfy? I'm having some trouble seperating past issues that you've already corrected with those that you think remain. I'm hoping then there can be a discussion about the state of the article meeting those criteria and/or action taken to bring the article up to GA standard. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The article still does contain a bit of OR that I missed; I don't want to remove it, though, because it's probably
WP:TRUE and verifiable, but not currently verified, which is a problem.
|
---|
|
The article gave the impression of being broad during the initial review, but with the OR gone this is not the case.
|
---|
|
Does ignoring the film's reputation in its native country count as "non-neutral"? If it doesn't then I guess this can be lumped into the above.
|
---|
|
Stability is an illusion.
|
---|
|
So I have finished creating threads for areas identified as concerns. Some of the concerns do seem valid but also seem fixable by interested editors (perhaps Hijiri88 or Ribbet32. It would seem like a shame to delist given what seem like resolvable issues. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have always viewed this criteria narrowly. There is either edit warring or there isn't. The claim here is actually one of WP:OWN By definition Good Articles have room for improvement and so a claim of WP:STEWARDSHIP is going to be weaker than with a FA. Regardless of whether Ribbet32 liked the changes that the three different multi-edit editors have made since January there has been no revision and Ribbet has been active the whole time on Wikipedia. Since this is a talk page discussion it strikes me as completely with-in WP:CONSENSUS to express disagreement about content. In the end I just can't see issues with this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This seems like the best claim of a shortfall for GA status but also fixable. Are there sources which can be found to remedy? While I am not ignorant of Japanese film (especially of this era) it feels like other editors would be better positioned to find high quality sources to add context. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I admit that spelling/grammar proofreading isn't my strongest area as an editor but I'm not seeing any issues with the article in this criteria. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This is tied into 3a but does concern me given current composition of the article. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I have added (with citations) the previously common English title Tales of a Pale and Mysterious Moon After the Rain. This appears to be a mistake for Tales of a Pale and Misty Moon After the Rain, perhaps originating from Bosley Crowther's review in The New York Times ( 8 Sep 1954 p. 40) which concludes 'We understand that "Ugetsu" means "pale and mysterious moon after the rain"—which is just about as revealing as a great deal else in this film.' If someone can find a source to confirm that, it would be worth adding as a footnote. jnestorius( talk) 14:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)