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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 [1].

---

Akira Kurosawa[edit]

Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for the Akira Kurosawa biography which is currently listed as of top importance for Wikiproject:Japan. It has previously been nominated for FA status in 2010 though failed and is presently at GA status following recent updates and related article development. The article is comprehensive, up to date, and with an improved outline for the biography. It should be more readable and accessible for readers and editors of this article who appreciate the contributions made by this filmmaker. This is my first GA article here and first time to try to promote it through the FA nomination process. Comments from those experienced editors reading this article and participating in this assessment are welcome to help in refining it by constructive and critical comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article review[edit]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in good shape but there are somethings that could be fixed:

• Avoid quotes in the lead.

The sentence making that quote has been rewritten. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, try to balance the lead. The first and last paragraphs are too small.

Lead section paragraphs should be more balanced now with some further short summary of Kurosawa's influence. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The references 33-37 seem like an overkill. I would reduce some of them. There are other similar cases, so I suggest separating them across the paragraphs.

Reducing down to three citations now to support that sequel's reception. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, it would be Kurosawa's second film of 1950, Rashomon, that would ultimately win him, and Japanese cinema, a whole new audience." is completely unsourced and small.

That sentence was meant to be part of the paragraph before it and has been merged there, with Rashomon elaborated in the subsequent section in chronological order of films. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I see no issues. Ping me or mention me when you think you fixed the issues. If you have free time, could you check Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3? Regards.

All right, giving you my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a large number of changes just now to the article's lede and to the basic structure of the article and I intend to do more. I am a Kurosawa expert and was the editor responsible for the entire long biographical section as it now exists, as well as most of the rest of the content as it existed until recently, so please don't undo my changes before I complete the major ones I envision and have had time to justify my changes on this page. Thank you! Dylanexpert (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment: "A teenage Alejandro González Iñárritu remembers being spellbound when he first saw Ikiru at the age of 19" -- tautology: delete "A teenage" or "at the age of 19". --Gertanis (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gertanis: That is now included. Are there any other sections to support or oppose or revise in the article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Note: All images in this article are currently in good standing on Wikicommons and are shared by over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia at present as being images in good standing. If you have reason to believe that there may be any issues with any of the images used in this article then add your comments in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Akirakurosawa-onthesetof7samurai-1953-page88.jpg: when was this first published? Same with File:Kajiro_Yamamoto.jpg

The image in the infobox is used from the Japanese Wikipedia article, and was taken during film production of his film Seven Samurai from 1953. The Kajiro Yamamoto image is shared with his English Wikipedia biography page. If there is an issue with either of these images then they can be replaced with other public domain images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale being given on the Wikicommons page for this Kurosawa image is that there is no copyvio because: "...It is also in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in Japan expired by 1970 and was not restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act," making the image unobjectionable for copyvio for the six English Wikipedia pages which currently share this image. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to assess whether that tag is appropriate for these images, we need to know when and where the images were first published. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Kurosawa is identified as being from Japan with copyright expired by 1970. More information about the production of the film and when the photo was taken is presented on the Seven Samurai Wikipage for the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to know, which I don't see there, is when these images were published, not created. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best information we have at present is the identification by another editor that the image is "from Japan with copyright expired by 1970". If you have new evidence that this is a wrong rationale as currently published then since you are a sysops representative for Wikipedia you may remove this rationale so that other editors using it will not continue to be misled by it. I am not able to remove that currently published rationale written by another editor since I am required by Wikipedia policy to assume good faith and I have no proof to the contrary. Nonetheless, if based on your new evidence you wish to remove that rationale from Wikicommons as put there by another editor in good faith, then please remove it or remove the image as compromised, and then I and the other thirty editors on Interwiki using this image for the exact same purpose on their Interwiki Kurosawa articles can happily change the image immediately for an alternate image. If you wish an alternate image of it for your own personal reasons, then I can also happily provide one. The current image is now used by about 30 Interwiki pages for the same purpose. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sugata_Sanshiro_poster.jpg: confused by this. The date field says 1943, but the description says 1952 and tagging suggests it was not PD in the US in 1996

This was the marketing poster for the film from 1943 and is shared with the English Wikipedia article for this film. Promotional material used in marketing films is usually public domain in terms of newspaper and magazine fair use. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain and fair use are not the same thing. Which is it in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional posters used to promote and market films are considered public domain. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not by default, although some are for other reasons. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. Promotional poster art is used as public domain throughout Wikipedia and Interwiki usage even doubles that high usage. Presently, Kurosawa's film Drunken Angel uses the poster art on nearly two dozen Interwiki versions of the article, and his film Stray Dog uses it on another two dozen Interwiki versions. Kurosawa's film Seven Samurai uses promotional poster art on nearly four dozen Interwiki articles, including the « article de qualité » at French Wikipedia which is peer reviewed. Please clarify, or do all of these Wikipedia articles and Interwikipedia articles share the same image protection issue you raise for the use of promotional poster art. If you prefer, I could offer to help address this by using the peer reviewed promotional poster art from the French version of Seven Samurai if being extra careful is important here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PD. In a nutshell, being made available to the public - as with any poster, news photo, art display, etc - is not synonymous with public domain, which has as a particular meaning of "copyright-free". Some promotional poster art is public domain due to its age - copyright expires after a period of time, which varies from country to country. In other cases Wikipedia uses poster art under fair use, which requires that all of the non-free content criteria apply. In this particular case, if the poster was published in 1943 it likely is in the public domain because the copyright would have expired; if it was published in 1952 that is likely not the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link about copyright protection. I've just read the articles for the current Academy Award winning films Moonlight and La La Land both of which use promotional poster art prominently and I see no difficulty there with the use of promotional poster art in those articles which were released for the purpose of promoting and marketing those films. Possibly you could explain why the use of promotional poster art on the two current Oscar film articles is fine in the eyes of all the editors at those Wikipedia articles, but the use of promotional poster art for Kurosawa's films forms an issue for this article. If you need to see some special annotation for the use of this promotional poster art in this Kurosawa article, please indicate what you would like to see here on the basis of these two current Oscar winning film articles which prominently use promotional poster art. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First we need to clarify the publication date of this poster, to determine whether a fair-use claim is needed at all. If it is, take a look at the description provided at File:Moonlight_(2016_film).png: it includes a breakdown of how the use of the image meets each of the non-free content criteria, as well as a tag indicating the poster is under fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Drunken-Angel-1a.jpg: the given tag is meant for cases where there is critical discussion of the film, not for biographical images

This film was a breakthrough film for Kurosawa and Mifune, and is discussed in this article as to its harsh thematic content for the time of its production, as a controversial artistic choice of material by Kurosawa. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the fair use rationale provided states that the purpose of the image is to show Mifune, not to discuss the film. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of Mifune images from the film Drunken Angel used on many other pages in Wikipedia which could be used in the article based on preference and use of image standards. Here is one of many others. If you prefer this one, it can be used with the same caption presently being used in the current article's image or a modified caption can replace it as an enhancement to the article. The current image in the article was placed there by a previous editor. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Dostoevskij_1863.jpg: when/where was this first published?

This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for Dostoevski. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Badsleepwell.jpg is lacking a fair-use rationale for this article

This was the marketing poster for the film from the 1950s and is shared with the English Wikipedia article for this film. Promotional material used in marketing films is usually public domain in terms of fair use in articles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:DavidLean1965.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?

This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for David Lean. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:An'yo-in_Kamakura_Kurosawa_Akira's_Grave.jpg: what is the copyright status of the memorial?

This image is used from the Japanese Wikipedia article. If there is an issue with its use there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ingmar_86135a.jpg: source link is dead, date is missing, and what is the status of this work in the US?

This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for Ingmar Bergman. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending fixes, and pending some attention to citation formatting which is at the moment rather inconsistent and incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cite templates you had left in the article earlier today I can try to address tomorrow or the next day and ought to be fairly straightforward to rewrite. Your images questions above appear mostly concerned with images shared with other Wikipedia articles. They can generally be removed or replaced as needed. My responses are interspersed with your comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it really doesn't matter whether the images are shared with other articles. Nominations for featured status must meet the FA criteria, which includes a point about images. That means we need to be able to demonstrate that these images in this article are in accordance with the details of that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation templates from yesterday in the article are now taken care of with some added links I placed in the article this morning. My responses to your follow-up image comments are interspersed with your image comments above. Promotional posters used to promote and market films are considered public domain. The other images you have listed as needing attention can be replaced or removed based on your responses to my interspersed answers to your useful image comments above. I'll try to follow your indications of which images ought to be replaced and which to retain in order to further enhance this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After your last comments above I spent the afternoon reading through the copyright notices on the articles and think that I can summarize them succinctly for all the images you identified, though the reasoning applied to justify each image varies somewhat from image to image. For the first three photographs you list, the Kurosawa at Seven Samurai, Kurosawa's mentor, and still photo of Mifune, then the relevant date for Japanese copyright is 1958 which can be summarized as: This photograph is in the public domain in Japan because it was first published in Japan and its copyright has expired according to Article 23 of the 1899 Copyright Act of Japan and Article 2 of Supplemental Provisions of Copyright Act of 1970. Photographs prior to 1958 are in the public domain. All three of these photos are from before 1958 and therefore may be used. For the two posters you identify as a concern, the reasoning is from fair use which can be summarized as: This image is of a poster, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher or the creator of the work depicted. It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of posters to provide critical commentary on the film, event, or associated activities in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. For the image you question of Dostoevski, the photo is from when he was alive in the 19th century and there is no claim to copyright for such old photographs which may be summarized as: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. The David Lean photo is public domain under the law of Finland where it was taken which states: This photograph is in the public domain in Finland, because either a period of 50 years has elapsed from the year of creation or the photograph was first published before 1966. The §49a of the Finnish copyright law of 2005 specifies that photographs not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created. The high resolution image of his grave was donated for use as public domain by a Wikipedia user named Urashimataro on WikiCommons. Finally,the Bergman photo is under Swedish law prior to 1967 and therefore: This Swedish photograph is in the public domain in Sweden because one of the following applies: The work is non-artistic (journalistic, …) and has been created before 1969. The image use for each of these items placed in your list is justified for inclusion in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the relevant date for Japanese copyright is 1958 in terms of publication - images published, not just created, before that date are in the public domain in Japan. Further, we need to consider whether it was in the public domain in Japan as of 1970, which determines whether it is in the public domain in the US. For the two posters you identify as a concern, the reasoning is from fair use - in which case you would need a fair-use rationale on the image page to address the non-free content criteria as they apply to this specific article. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. Can you demonstrate that this occurred? Not all old photographs have been published. Thr David Lean photo is public domain under the law of Finland but we also need to consider its status under the law of the US. The high resolution image of his grave was donated for use as public domain but what is the status of the grave itself, independent of the image? See freedom of panorama. the Bergman photo is under Swedish law prior to 1967 but again, what is it under US law? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full rationale is given on the WikiCommons page for each one of these images which I summarized above for ease of access. If there is a faulty rationale which previous editors have logged there for the multiple pages which share these various images used on English Wikipedia and Interwikipedia, then the previous editors need to be challenged on their rationale at WikiCommons. You can read these statements of rationale by clicking of the individual images and then clicking again on the detail tab which comes up at the bottom right of the screen to find the details of each of these rationale statements. If you are challenging them then please realize that some of these images have been in shared use on multiple Wikipedia pages for several years without issue by readers and editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, I know how to find the image description on Wikimedia Commons. Since you are putting up this particular article for FA status, you need to ensure that those pages are correct and complete, in accordance with FA requirements around images. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link and let me know if there are items which require attention on the images. The current images used look ok on WikiCommons and I have offered to change the Mifune image to the one in your discussion with me above if this is preferred or preferable to readers and editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

See my initial comments for the items which require attention on the images. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale provided for each of those images on WikiCommons appears adequate to the many readers and editors who use those images daily at multiple pages on English Wikipedia and Interwiki for use on both regular articles and peer reviewed articles. If an image is not justified for use on a peer reviewed article then it is not justified for use anywhere else on Wikipedia. As you are in sysops, you may have some responsibility to move forward to challenge and remove those images at Wikicommons, with my support if it helps. If the rationale currently provided for those image is poorly formulated in your view, then they should not be used on either regular articles or peer reviewed articles. My own option is to change and replace the current images, and spend time finding peer review quality images, possibly including the ones used on the fine peer reviewed Seven Samurai article on French Wikipedia. I am assuming that you will allow the use of the Kurosawa gravestone image which was donated by a Wikipedia user at WikiCommons as being unencumbered as to copyright. The alternate Mifune image I presented above also looks like a good substitute for the one you pointed out as having suspicious rationale on WikiCommons. Thanks for alerting me to these issues with the suspicious rationale currently being used for those images which are presently being used throughout Wikipedia and Interwiki. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks, all images used in this article appear to be in good standing on Wikicommons and are shared with over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia. All the images appear to have no challenges for their use in Wikipedia and in this article at this time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, are you able to let me know how things look from your perspective now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: It appears that there have been minimal changes to the images since last I looked - many of the points above still stand. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and Ian Rose: Following this discussion raised last month a number of editors have reviewed the images and only one was found to be a problem, and it was replaced by the Ed McBain image in the article now. All of the images currently in this article are shared by over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia who are having no issues with these images provided on Wikicommons. The usage of these shared images appears to be without issue for the many editors and articles which currently share them and make use of them on Wikipedia. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• needs a tag indicating its status in the US
• File:The_Idiot_(book_cover).jpg would need a fair-use rationale for this article, but there likely isn't one that applies

• The current rationale for this image on Wikipedia being currently shared on other Wikipedia pages for fair use is given as: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question," which appears to apply precisely. Your previous objection to a 19th century photo of Dostoevsky could also be reconsidered and used as a substitute here as you might prefer it. Either image is fine as neither appears objectionable on the basis of copyvio. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:NFCC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Either one of the images for Dostoevski which I have presented can be used, whichever you prefer. The first image of Dostoevski was a photo from the 19th century which is not a copyvio since it is from the 19th century. The book cover is promotional material for a book which is in the public domain since all of Dostoevski's writings are from the 19th century and there is no copyvio for books taken from the 19th century. Neither image is a copyvio and you may select either one for the article as to your preference, either the first one of the Dostoevski photo or the alternate I have presented for a book with no copyvio, written in the 19th century. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A 2003 book cover, unless it's derived from an earlier version, is not a 19th-century work, and even for 19th-century works we need to demonstrate that they are in the public domain and appropriately tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Either one of the images of either his 19th-century portrait (from the 1800s) or an image of his book presents no copyvio of any kind. There is a difference in the industry in the understanding of promotional material used to encourage people to buy copyrighted material which publishers pay various venues to reproduce, and the copyrighted material itself which publishers wish to profit from by getting people to buy them after reading promos which publishers pay to have reproduced. Optionally, either of these images may be used since neither one represents a copyvio, and you may select the one or the other as to your preference. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:DavidLean.jpg would need a fair-use rationale for this article, and source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an extensive 11-point rationale for the fair use of this image at Wikicommons, and here is an alternate source for the image here: [2]. You may select either this alternate image I am presenting of Lean here as shared on Wikicommons, or the previous one I presented of him directing on set, since both a free of copyvio. Its your choice as to which one you prefer since there is no copyvio on either one. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The existing rationale is for a different article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You may select either the original image of the deceased director David Lean I first presented, or the alternate image I have presented here with the rationale provided by other editors in good faith currently using the image on their Wikipedia articles. If you prefer the second image, then the rationale presented in points 2-4 on Wikicommons remains application that there is no copyvio which states: "The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product." You may select either the original image I presented or the alternate image as your preference since there is no copyvio for the use of either one of these images. You may select the one you prefer. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In order for a non-free image to be used, a separate fair-use rationale must be provided for each article in which the image is used. In order for the other image to be used, you would need an answer to my question above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The current rationale given on Wikicommons states that, ""The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product," which I am required by Wikipedia policy to accept on good faith since I have no evidence to believe that this image is a copyvio in any way. If you have new evidence that this rationale provided by another editor is false, then please remove it from Wikicommons so that other editors currently sharing this image on Wikipedia are not misled by it. There are two versions of an image of David Lean I have now provided and you may choose either one since neither one represents a copyvio in any way. You may select either one as your preference since they are maintained on Wikicommons for the benefit of Wikipedia editors to use. Since the images are virtually interchangeable the rationale for their use is also virtually interchangeable because of the similarity of the separate images depicting the exact same person. You may pick the image which you prefer from the two alternative images presented as currently being without any copyvio. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gertanis[edit]

• "After years of working on numerous films as an assistant director and scriptwriter, he made his debut as a director in 1943, during World War II, with the popular action film Sanshiro Sugata (a.k.a. Judo Saga)." – strike either 'in 1943' or 'during World War II'
• "Rashomon, which premiered in Tokyo in August 1950, and which also starred Mifune, became, on September 10, 1951, the surprise winner of the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival and was subsequently released in Europe and North America." too wordy and specific for the lede section: cut out mention of Mifune and, if possible the dates
• "Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Kurosawa directed approximately a film a year, including a number of highly regarded (and often copied) films," – 'copied' is too strong (suggests plagiarism), try 'remade', 'adapted', 'influential', 'referenced' or something like that
• "After the mid-1960s, he became much less prolific, but his later work—including his final two epics, Kagemusha (1980) and Ran (1985)—continued to win awards, including the Palme d'Or for Kagemusha, though more often abroad than in Japan." – strike 'mid', also ditch the mention of the Palme, not needed here, and makes for awkward sentence flow
• "Posthumously, he was named "Asian of the Century" in the "Arts, Literature, and Culture" category by AsianWeek magazine and CNN, cited there as being among the five most prominent people who contributed to the betterment of Asia in the past century." – is 'betterment' really the word used? Also suggest adverbializing the bit before 'people' (i.e. 'who most prominently')

That's it for now. Gertanis (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good and useful comments now added to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment (more tomorrow): Consider nuking the see also-section. For the article to be comprehensive, all those pages should be mentioned in the prose, which they indeed seem to be. --Gertanis (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to have duplicate links and they are now moved to the main portion of the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch:

• "His career has been honored by many retrospectives, critical studies and biographies in both print and video, and by releases in all existing media" – 'all existing media' is too broad, and inaccurate. I'd use something like 'consumer media formats', 'video storage formats', 'home viewing format', etc.
• What exactly is 'Ōimachi'? A borough? Corner? Street? Neighbourhood?
• "His father Isamu, a member of a former samurai family from Akita Prefecture" – needs def article
• "Isamu Kurosawa was open to western traditions" → Western traditions
• "Through Heigo, Akira devoured not only films but also theater and circus performances" → I'm not quite comfortable with the word 'through'. Maybe 'Influenced by', 'In Heigo's company' or something like that
• "He also frequently wrote screenplays for other directors such as for Satsuo Yamamoto's film, A Triumph of Wings (Tsubasa no gaika, 1942)." – give short description of Yamamoto's relation to Kurosawa. Also, sentence flows better with "...wrote screenplays for other directors, such as A Triumph of Wings for Yamamoto"
• The paragraph Wartime films and marriage (1942–45) has way too many bracketed sentences. You can't use parentheses out in the open like that—try dashes.
• "The war now ended, Kurosawa, absorbing the democratic ideals of the Occupation, sought to make films that would establish a new respect towards the individual and the self" – this sentence doesn't quite parse. Try "After the war, K., influenced by the democratic ideals..." Also 'the individual' and 'the self' is repetitive
• "Atypically for the director, the heroic central character is a woman, Yukie (Setsuko Hara), born into upper-middle-class privilege, who comes to question her values in a time of political crisis." – move 'who' to after 'Hara),'
• "The original script had to be extensively rewritten and, because of its controversial theme (and because the protagonist was a woman), the completed work divided critics, but it nevertheless managed to win the approval of audiences, who turned variations on the film's title ("No regrets for...") into something of a postwar catchphrase." – again, the bracket issue. I think you should strike the whole ("No regrets for...") thing; I think readers will figure, as they've already have been given the title
• "The movie bears the influence of Frank Capra, D. W. Griffith and F. W. Murnau" – could you expand on that? Whose judgement is this? When did he see films of these directors?
• "However, Kurosawa did not want to smother the young actor's immense vitality, and Mifune's rebellious character electrified audiences in much the way that Marlon Brando's defiant stance would startle American film audiences a few years later." – who is making this connection to Brando?
• "However, it would be Kurosawa's second film of 1950, Rashomon, that would ultimately win him, and Japanese cinema, a whole new audience (as discussed in the International recognition section below)." – remove emphasis (italics) from 'second', and cut the self-referential bit at the end
• "Kurosawa picked a script by an aspiring young screenwriter, Shinobu Hashimoto. (They would eventually write nine films together.)" → 'with whom he would eventually write...'
• "The movie was met by lukewarm reviews, with many critics puzzled by its unique theme and treatment" – treatment of what exactly?
• "Later generations of Japanese filmmakers who would find acclaim outside Japan—from Kon Ichikawa, Masaki Kobayashi, Nagisa Oshima and Shohei Imamura to Juzo Itami, Takeshi Kitano and Takashi Miike—were able to pass through the door that Kurosawa was the very first to open." – that's a rather speculative judgement, considering no citation is given
• "Throne of Blood, a lavishly produced adaptation of William Shakespeare's Macbeth" - editorial judgement (emph. mine)
• "Appropriately, the acting of the players, particularly Yamada, draws heavily on the stylized techniques of the Noh theater." - ditto
• "In contrast to the gigantic scope and sweep of Throne of Blood, The Lower Depths was shot on only two confined sets, the better to emphasize the restricted nature of the characters' lives." – ditto
• "Released in December 1958, The Hidden Fortress became an enormous box office success in Japan and was warmly received by critics." – domestic critics?
• "The Bad Sleep Well, based on a script by Kurosawa's nephew Mike Inoue, is a revenge drama about a young man who climbs the hierarchy of a corrupt Japanese company with the intention of exposing the men responsible for his father's death." 'who climbs' → 'climbing'
• "The 25-minute opening sequence, depicting a corporate wedding reception interrupted by reporters and police (who arrest an executive for corruption), is widely regarded as one of Kurosawa's most skillfully executed set pieces, but the remainder of the film is often perceived as disappointing by comparison" – too long and unwieldy
• "Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars was a virtual (unauthorized) scene-by-scene remake." – 'Virtual' in what sense? Also, would love some more detail on this.
• "..set in a mid-19th century clinic for the poor," – needs consistent hyphenation
• "The film world was shocked, however, when Japan passed over the film in favor of another as its official entry to compete for an Oscar nomination in the Best Foreign Film category." – tone down the language (try 'surprised'). Perhaps also mention the name of the other film?
• "Kurosawa employed a number of recurring major themes in his films." – you can employ a technique, but not a theme.

Gertanis (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This set of edits can now be found in the article. Ready for next set of edit requests and perhaps you have further comments on the article or the images used. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also consider prosifying the 'Documentaries' section. I would guess that the films mentioned there could have more background detail, especially the Marker one. I can give you little advice on the images however—not my field of expertise—only that you'll have to comply with what the FAC delegates say. Pointing to usage on other articles helps little: This is the review page for Akira Kurosawa, and for it to become an FA, it needs to fulfill all criteria, including # 3. --Gertanis (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: The above user is re-opening the question of the images used in this Kurosawa article based on WIAFA#3 which states: Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. I will ask that regardless of other editors at Wikipedia currently sharing these images, that you simply delete any images currently used in the article which are deemed by the current stewards of the FAC page and process to be in any way unsuitable. Simply remove the ones you deem the source of your concerns for the integrity of the FAC process, could I request that you do this given the new material from the above user? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

¶ Legacy of general criticism

• "Criticism of Kurosawa in his legacy has significantly followed the main currents of criticism as they emerged during his lifetime and with the international reception of his individual films during his lifetime (see main article link above)". – I have no idea what this sentence is trying to tell me. Also, MOS:SELFREF
• "Since the early to mid-1950s, a number of critics belonging to the French New Wave" – try 'French New Wave critics' or 'critics from the French New Wave'
• "In Japan, both critics and other filmmakers have sometimes accused his work of elitism, because of his focus on exceptional, heroic individuals and groups of men." – 'due to his focus'; strike 'sometimes'
• "In her commentary on the deluxe DVD edition of Seven Samurai, Joan Mellen" — strike 'on the deluxe DVD edition'. Additionally, that quote is way too long. See WP:QUOTE
• "Because of Kurosawa's popularity with European and American audiences from the early 1950s onward" → "Owing to K's popularity"

¶ Reputation among filmmakers

• "Many celebrated directors have been influenced by Kurosawa and/or have expressed admiration for his work." – choose either 'and' or 'or'; don't use /
• "The filmmakers cited below are grouped according to four categories" – self-ref
• "Ingmar Bergman called his own film The Virgin Spring" – add '(The) Swedish director' first; similar solutions for Fellini et al.
• "Robert Altman, when he first saw Rashomon (during the period when he worked regularly in television rather than feature films)" – see earlier comments re parentheses
• "Both Spielberg and Scorsese have praised the older man's role as teacher and role model—as a sensei, to use the Japanese term." – who is using that Japanese term? Also not a fan of colloquial 'older man'
• "As already noted above" – self-ref

Gertanis (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Two quick points here: the image issue above was from Nikkimaria, not one of the FAC coordinators. As far as I can see, her oppose still stands. Secondly, this review is starting to become very unwieldy, and long lists of review like this can become very difficult to follow. My inclination is that this really should have been taken care of long before this stage of a FAC and I wonder was the article not quite prepared for FAC. As it is, my inclination is to archive this as we have a fairly cursory support and a considered oppose and we are coming up for 6 weeks of this review being open. Unless someone can convince me that we can achieve consensus for promotion, I will probably archive this before the weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I'm unwatching, please let me know if you need further input from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images currently used in the article are in good standing at Wikicommons and their rationale as presented there has not been challenged in any way to my knowledge by anyone including User Nikki. When I asked her for her for what new evidence she is using to challenge each one of the half dozen images used in the article she has withdrawal her "watching" of the review of these images. The current images are shared by dozens of Wikipedia pages on English Wikipedia and on Interwiki without any issues of copyvio in any way. The very large consensus of using these images among the many editor presently including them in dozens of Wikipedia articles is that there is no copyvio in their continuing usefulness for Wikipedia articles. If any editor or reader of this article has information that there is copyvio of any kind please include your comments here or in the section above for attention. All the current images being shared with other articles are presently in good standing on Wikicommons without any issues. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator support: All the images in the main body of the article have now been changed to images currently on Wikicommons. This nomination was made on behalf of the top editors of the Kurosawa article (not myself) who have been contributing significant time to the support and maintenance of this article for several years. The article is currently of high quality and peer reviewed, and it should be allowed to go through the rest of the evaluation period for FAC given the useful effort made by those two top editors over the years. Now that all the images have been replaced with new ones concerning the single person opposition about images made to this article, then it is possible for the FAC to continue without opposition to the old images which are no longer part of this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: There is very little prospect of achieving a consensus to promote here, so I think this article is best served by archiving, which I shall be doing shortly. I would recommend looking carefully at this, and seeking some feedback before renominating, if desired, after the usual two-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.