Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Not One Less/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:41, 8 November 2009 [1].

Not One Less

edit
Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This article—about a fascinating, strange, and controversial film—has been carefully researched and been through a couple copyedits. I feel it meets all the FA criteria. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image copyright review: All OK. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The toolbox reveals a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, but when you actually try the link it's fine. This is not the first time I've noticed the toolbox incorrectly marking links as dead; I don't know how exactly that tool works, so I'm not sure would could be causing it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that when I clicked on it the first time it was dead. However, it seems to have fixed itself. Sorry for the false alarm. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Very interesting article. The quotations in this sentence are not directly referenced: Zhang accused the festival of not being motivated by artistic concerns, and criticized the Western perception that all Chinese films must be either "pro-government" or "anti-government", referring to it as a "discrimination against Chinese films". —mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching that. I've moved the ref to the end of the sentence to make it clearer that all the quotes are from there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way you can integrate the "See also"s into the article? —mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks generally very good.
    1. In one passage we refer to "another student (Zhang Mingshan)"; I couldn't find that name listed in the cast. Is it because it is a minor character? Also, it is not immediately apparent which Zhang left for the city. --JN466 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The writing in general is excellent; this sentence was the first to strike me as not flowing properly: "The film ends with a series of title cards that recount what the characters went on to do after the film, and describe the problem of poverty in rural education in China." --JN466 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I was also confused by Zhang Mingshan--she's not really a minor character (not critical to the plot, but she does spend much more time on-screen than most of the other people in the cast list). But the cast list in the article is copied directly off of the credits that roll at the end of the film, and this list (which is basically the same thing, just in Chinese), so I didn't add any characters who weren't listed there. Anyway, to kill two birds with one stone, I just removed Zhang Mingshan's name from the plot summary, as it's not super-important and just introduces unnecessary confusion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      2. How about "At the end of the film, a series of title cards are superimposed on the screen. The first several describe what the major characters went on to do after the events of the film, and the last describes the problem of poverty in rural education in China." Would that be an improvement? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article but I'd hate to see it made into a featured article while it has the cast list formatted as a Table. A cast list should be a list, preferably with additional descriptions or casting information. Tables are best reserved for multi column data that benefits from being sortable. So many editors take the Featured Articles as examples of best practice. I'd change it myself only not understanding any Chinese I'm worried I might inadvertently mess something up. -- Horkana (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table is formatted as it is for good reason. This is an unusual film and its cast is not like that of most films on Wikipedia; for most characters here, there would be little prose-style information or casting information to write anyway. I see absolutely no harm in displaying the information as it is displayed currently, and this is precisely the reason we have WP:IAR. If you read the article it is very clear why the cast list here deserves different treatment than what is normal. Furthermore, I see absolutely nothing in Wikipedia:When to use tables saying that tables should only be used for "sortable" data, and that page even gives as an example of appropriate tables one containing "Person, birthdate, occupation". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, presenting the information as a table is easier but the same information could be expressed as prose, the downside being it makes comparison at a glance between real job and fictional role a little harder. There are exceptions and I suppose this might be one of them but using tables for Cast lists is discouraged and some editors have an annoying a habit of pointing to Featured Articles as best practice so I felt I had to at least mention it. There are general rules about preferring prose over tables. It's not a Wikipedia rule and I'll have to finish reading Tufte but tables are best used for multi-column data. In HTML tables were intended for data but got used for layout instead for years and years until Stylesheets caught on properly. Made my preference known, I'll leave it at that, it's only a minor point.
  • +Support Ling.Nut (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have run through it and done some copy editing. I have a slight hesitation about the table format for the cast, as I think a cast list of descriptive prose might be more effective but don't feel strongly about the issue. This is a fascinating and comprehensive article; the plot section is especially well done and clearly presents the themes. The article is integrated and hangs together well. —mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I - please consider it's been a while since I commented at FAC, apart from one outing this afternoon.... so I may be "out of touch". But, here you go...

  • "Wei is told not to lose any students" - this could be expanded on, i.e. lose them on a trip? lose them mentally?
    • This is discussed in more detail at the beginning of the plot section, and I can't think of any way to expand it in the lede without getting awkwardly wordy for a summary... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth stating in the lead when the film is set, as for me, at least, a 13 year old sub teacher is quite a different concept!
  • Not sure about how the modern world feels about the use of "thus", but that's just me...
    • Personally it doesn't bother me, so I'll wait and see if more editors find it awkward. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link to the actual 2000 Cannes Film Festival in the lead rather than the generic one.
  • "dropping out to pursue work" - perhaps it's obvious, but why was this happening?
    • Generally because of poverty in rural areas and a perception that formal schooling isn't necessary or useful. I don't have the source for that bit handy, but I can check it tonight. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not One Less was only Zhang Yimou's second film..." why only? Perhaps for the non-expert you could provide a context? And is it still the case or was it a fact at the time of filming only?
    • He and Gong Li were well-known for their close collaboration, before this and Keep Cool Gong Li had starred in all of his films. I could add a little blurb on their collaboration, but personally I think it's already apparent from the sentence (since it says that she starred in almost all his films before this). Anyway, this is not still the case (until Curse of the Golden Flower a couple years ago, all of Zhang's films since this one didn't have Gong Li), but at the time it was apparently a big deal. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film or movie? Not sure if you mean to use these words interchangeably, not a big deal but I would be consistent.
    • I've been using them interchangeably just to mix things up a little...I don't really know the difference between the two. If one is more accurate here than the other, let me know and I'll see if I can replace them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia for whatever reason decided articles would use the suffix (film) so I'd favour the word "film" in most cases but using "movie" occasionally does help reduce some of the repetition (or suggests a rephrase is needed). I can only guess that since "movie" is short for the more formal "motion picture" it is preferable to use the more succint more formal (encylopedic) wording. Also movie seems more like American than British English to me, film at least feels a bit more neutral (very subjective opinion I know). -- Horkana (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not One Less cast[11][14]" - not sure this mini-heading is needed. For nice placement of the refs, you could always introduce the table with a sentence along the lines of "The main cast of Not One Less included:[11][14]", perhaps?
    • accidentally missed this one the first time around, replied below. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Location of Zhangjiakou, relative to Beijing." does that need a full stop?
  • "ad on TV." - a little colloquial - "an advertisement on television"?
    • I was just noticing that this morning and feeling awkward about it. Changed now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[19][12][20]" - not keen on out of order references. There may not be a MOS for it, but it's something that bugs me!

That's halfway roughly. If these comments are still welcome then feel free to ping me back to review the second half, sorry but I have RL things pressing urgently! Best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support I greatly enjoyed reading this article. I think that it is well-written and contains all of the sections one would expect in a film article. The only reason I am not supporting at this time is because I have a question about Chinese sources below.

  • Not One Less was only Zhang Yimou's second film not to star Gong Li (the first was his 1997 Keep Cool). - How many films had he made overall?
    • According to our article, this was his 9th film; the first 7 all starred Gong Li. The reason I included this sentence is that his collaboration with her was so well-known and this was a major break from it; the source cited also seems to imply that the lack of Gong Li is relevant to the casting (more specifically, that not having her to work with anymore pushed him to try something new here). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could we also include the fact that this was his 9th film? Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotten Tomatoes gave it a "fresh" 95% rating,[55] and Metacritic gave it a 73, signifying "generally favorable reviews". - Please integrate this sentence into one of the earlier paragraphs on reception. It looks lonely by itself!
    • I guess I can stick it at the beginning of the first paragraph there, before the more detailed stuff starts. Personally I don't care much for these aggregators, but most of our film articles seem to have them so I figured I should follow the standard. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would work better there. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious as to what has been published in Chinese sources? Might these provide different perspectives on the film?
    • I haven't looked at many (I think I only have 3 in the article), but what I have seen seems to confirm the "main melody" side of the critical reception... one talks mostly about how the film has good lessons for educators, another pretty much runs down all the places where the film premiered and how great the turnout was. I just found another source and will add it shortly; for the most part, the views from mainland China seem more unified than the ones from abroad. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a couple more Chinese reviews. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments

  • "Questions of money limit characters' actions..." reads a little strangely to me.
  • "rural life,[28][25]" refs out of numerical order.
  • "he'll never " - avoid contractions unless this is a direct quote in which case you need to quote mark it.
  • "another one of Zhang's " "one" seems redundant to me here.
  • "1999 Cannes Film Festival" per my comment above, link to the actual edition of the festival.
    • Oops, that should be 2000! Since 2000 Cannes is already linked in the intro, I've just delinked it here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "performances of the amateur actors,[18][21][28] and Jean-Michel Frodon of Le Monde call the actors' performances " performances..actors..actors..performances... in one sentence reads a little clumsily.
  • "years later.[60]) " not sure about the placement of that ref.
    • Hm, it looks like Chicago also says they should go outside the parentheses. So I've moved the ref now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overall;[61] The" no capital T required.
  • "Not One Less'" or "Not One Less's"
  • Refs 23, 29 and 51 share a lot of common information. Is 29 missing something?
    • They're the same source, but two of those refs have a quote. In earlier versions, I just had the quote in the prose, but I recently moved it into the ref to avoid breaking up the prose, and that required breaking up the ref a few times. Having the quote there is necessary, I think, as this is a French source and non-French-speaking readers who want to check it would need some way of knowing which part is relevant.
  • Ref 56 says in was retrieved in 200?
  • And there was one comment remaining above about the non-necessity for the crew heading...
    • Fixed now (and moved the refs to the parenthetical above the table). Sorry I missed that one the first time around. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Not_One_Less/archive1&oldid=1138468086"