Wikipedia:Peer review/Late Spring/archive1

Late Spring

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to go all the way to featured article status, and hopefully to become a Today's Featured Article. If you check the earliest versions of the article, it was little more than a few paragraphs; I have since expanded it to reflect the range and depth of English-language scholarship on this great, complex film. (If you've actually seen Late Spring, that would be ideal!) I would appreciate it if you could start tactfully by letting me know what you think is strong about the article. It doesn't sit well with me to spend months working on a project (like this one) and have someone begin by saying "you did X, Y and Z totally wrong!" Then, give me the critique: where and how the article could be more concise, more precise, more consistent with Wikipedia's rules. The whole purpose is to give reviewers less to challenge once I actually nominate it as a FA. And when you explain why something I'm doing is against the rules (or if there's a rule that I'm *not* following) it would help if you explain the logic of the rule, if you know it.

Thanks, Dylanexpert (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll review as requested. Tim riley (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a very substantial article, and I shall need several goes at it. I am enjoying the article, and I think it has the potential to be promoted to FA after a bit of fine-tuning. Here are my first lot of comments:

• General
  • "Parenthetic dashes: Wikipedia style is either en-dashes with a space on either side (as in my prose below) or em-dashes with no space—like this. You have em-dashes with spaces, and you should switch to one of the two approved formats.
• Disambiguation
  • You have two links that go to disambiguation pages: The Only Son and Late Autumn
• Lead
  • I think many reviewers at FAC will boggle at the large number of references in the lead. Where an uncontentious statement in the lead is later amplified and cited in the main text you can omit the citation in the lead. Direct quotations in the lead should have citations, though. You mentioned Ruma Maida when inviting me to review your article, and I think the lead of that is a model of how to do it: no citations at all, because all statements in the lead are elaborated and cited in the main text.
  • "The film's reputation has not diminished over time." – I'd omit this sentence and let the quotations speak for themselves.
• Biographical and historical background
  • There's a considerable amount in this section. I found it highly readable, but I wonder if so thorough an overview of Ozu's earlier work is really wanted here. If I were writing an article about, say, Hamlet, I wouldn't give extensive details of Richard III and The Comedy of Errors. If you feel it essential to retain it, be prepared to defend it stoutly at FAC.
• Ozu's alleged "subversion" of the censorship
  • "any other film Ozu ever made" – I'd omit "ever"
  • Image caption – "much-remarked-upon": I don't think the phrase is backed up in the text
• Kogo Noda
  • "hadn't" – except within quotations I'd avoid such informal contractions for your prose; they are not considered suitably "encyclopaedic" by some reviewers
  • "safely middle class" – it isn't clear what "safely" conveys here; comfortably?
• Narrative, themes and characterization
  • "unusual — some would say highly eccentric — approach" – unless you are going to justify this statement with a citation I'd advise omitting the comment about eccentricity
  • "not shown at all by the director" – I'd omit the last three words.
• "Parametric" narrative theory
  • "He claims that" – be careful with "claims": it tends to suggest that someone has an agenda of some sort. I'd substitute "In his view" or some such.
  • We aren't recommended to put Wikilinks within quotations, but there are times when this rule can be ignored, and I'd say "fabula" here is one such, assuming that fabula here means the same as here.
  • "He points out that" – there is a general expectation that in a new paragraph the first mention of a person uses the name, not a pronoun. I think this is a silly idea, and other encylopaedias don't follow it. Nonetheless, be warned that at FAC someone is likely to quibble.
• Major themes
  • "This summary is not intended to be comprehensive" – admirably candid, but you'll have trouble with this at FAC. Someone will ask why an article should be promoted to FA when it contains incomplete information. That's nonsense, of course, but I advise you to omit the sentence. Instead I suggest " The following represents what critics such as X, Y and Z, regard…"
  • "is , of course, marriage" – I'd lose "of course"
  • "and still exists today in parts of Japan" – WP has a very wise policy against phrasing that is liable to date – "recently", "today", etc – instead suggesting phrasing such as "in 2012". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. I'd say here something like "and still existed in parts of Japan more than sixty years later"

That's all for now. More to follow. Tim riley (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the delay in continuing with the review. I hope to be free to give it the necessary attention in the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made all the corrections you have suggested. As for the "Biographical and historical background" section, I have shortened it a bit and made it a bit clearer. I'm assuming an audience that has never seen any Japanese film, let alone an Ozu film; therefore, I need to place Late Spring within the history of the genre and the history of Ozu's work, without which the reader cannot possibly understand what he was trying to do or its significance. As to your Hamlet example , as a matter of fact, if I were writing that article, I would not summarize every play Shakespeare wrote, but I would bring in quotes about his previous tragedies to show how critics have viewed the ways in which the author's conception of tragedy evolved, and also commentary on other Elizabethan examples of the form (e.g., The Spanish Tragedy) to illustrate why it was so different from, say, Greek tragedy. That might make a longer article, but, also in my view, a fuller and clearer one. Dylanexpert (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm catching up with my backlog and I have this article on my to-do list for tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So sorry at further delay. I have not forgotten and I hope to be back in earnest within 48 hours. Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

More Riley comments

• Narrative, themes and characterization
  • "However, to Kathe Geist, Ozu’s narrative methods" – it looks odd to me to start a sub-section with "However". I think the sentence would work very well if you started it "To Kathe Geist, Ozu's…." Done.
• Major themes
  • "An interesting aspect of the film" – editorialising Done.
  • "Says Geist…" – Journalistic wording. "Geist says" would be more decorous. Done.
  • "Westernized phenomenon: the divorcee.[48][75][42]" – better to get your references in numerical order Done.
  • "On the other hand, he" - better to name him as it's a new para Done.

More to come. So sorry I'm so slow. Tim riley (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tim: I made all the corrections you suggested, or circumvented the problems in other ways. Hope that the article will soon be ready to achieve feature article status!

Crisco 1492 comments

• Quick comments. I will try to pop in tomorrow when I am more awake (nearly 11pm in my time zone)

• Agree about references in the lede. Only quotes should be cited if the other stuff has citations below. Done. I retained only non-quote references in the lede if they didn't occur elsewhere in the article.
• The article is, per the DYK check tool, 72850 characters (12151 words). You should probably trim it, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Stuff such as "Director and scriptwriter Kaneto Shindo describes it as his favourite of all Ozu's films.[162]" is quite minor, remembering the magnitude of this film. The section Biographical and historical background as well as having two paragraphs of biography for Kogo and Setsuko seems a bit much, considering we can also link to their articles and give a quick (like, two lines maybe) summary.

You would probably still find the article too long, but I tried to explain the rationale for the Historical and biographical background section better, and reduced the subsections on Noda and Hara. Hara is important, because I feel that the article is as much about her as about Ozu, but I have done some cutting and stuck to the essentials about her. I agree that the Shindo sentence (which I didn't write) should be deleted, and I have done so.

• Double check your italics. Examples of needed italics include Variety and I Was Born, But... (you have both in standard font) Done.
• There are numerous places where it's all walls of black text. You may be underlinking.

I actually think I was overlinking, but I will have another look at the text.

• The Home Media section needs a good rewriting to avoid single sentence paragraphs. Done!

• That's it from me for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• On second though, I'll hold any prose comments until after the article's been trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope you feel that the article is at least an improvement over the way it was. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cassianto comments

• I have only a few at first glance some of which haven't been picked up on above:

• Could the cast list be split into two columns to reduce white space?
• In the "Style" section you have bundled four citations midway through a sentence. As per WP:CITECLUTTER, could this be moved to the end of that sentence?
• Also in "Style" you have quoted "pillow". If it's quoted it will need a source.

Looks like a very promising article. Well done! -- Cassianto (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have put the Cast list in table format not only to eliminate white space, but to make it easier to read. I took the four citations that were in the middle of the sentence to which I believe you were referring and moved them to the end of the sentence. I have put citations in both places in which the phrase "pillow shot" appears in quotes and eliminated the quotes around the phrase in all other instances. Done! Dylanexpert (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Biographical and historical background

• also known as the "home drama" -- Why is this in inverts? Source if intended?

These are in quotes because the phrase, which makes use of two Japanese loan words "home drama" ("homu dorama"), derived from the English term, signify a distinct film category. According to Bock, it is now used pejoratively as a synonym for "soap opera," but in the period I discuss, it represented a new and original kind of domestic drama aimed at a female audience.Dylanexpert (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• “Mixing laughter and tears, the "Kamata-flavor" film was aimed at an urban female audience. Kido wanted films that, in his words, "looked at the reality of human nature through the everyday activities of society". -- Source for quotes?
• The films might be socially critical, but their criticism was based on the hope that human nature was basically good. People struggle to better their lot, Kido believed, and this aspiration should be treated in ‘a positive, warm-hearted, approving way.’” -- The opening quotation mark is missing. Where does it start?

I apologize because the questions relating to the two points shown above all derive from the fact that I did not place the correct quotation marks correctly. Now that the quotes are right, it is much more clear not only who (Kido or Bordwell) said which words, but that the reference at the end of the quote covers the entire Bordwell quote. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Occupation censorship - Censorship problems with Late Spring

• "considered feudalistic the Japanese custom of arranged meetings for prospective marriage partners, miai, because the custom seemed to them to downgrade the importance of the individual." -- source needed. and avoid wiki linking in quotes.
  • I know it's officially frowned on to link from quotes, but the rule is pretty widely ignored, and I have not so far got into hot water by ignoring it. Tim riley (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tim. In which case Dylan, ignore the last part of my comment. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
      • It was unclear from the original reference that the Hirano quote in the paragraph and the following sentence came from the same page in the same source. I have cleared up that minor confusion. Dylanexpert (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• I knew there would only be a few (and oddly within the first couple of sections). All these small issues have been resolved. No further issues. I would be happy to support as and when it's listed at FAC. Ping me when it's listed and I'll show my allegiance. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)