Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akira Kurosawa/archive3

Akira Kurosawa

 * Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the well-known film director Akira Kurosawa. The article was previously nominated 2 years ago with requests to review it with further editors and update the images which was done. Grapple X has agreed to act as mentor since I have only done GA articles and not a completed FA. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A great article about one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Overdue for appreciation. Article reads well and greatly improved imagery...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a great article. Any possibility of a picture of Kurosawa from the latter half of his life? (Sorry if this is not an appropriate question to ask at a FAC; I don't have a lot of experience in this area of assessment.) Dekimasu よ! 05:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear your comment about this biography article. The images for the article went through 3-4 cycles of selection and it seemed a good idea to include the image of the Hollywood director Sidney Lumet defending Kurosawa toward the end of Kurosawa's career since Lumet was a well-known director contemporaneous to Kurosawa. The image selection process took place here . If you have any alternate images from commons which look good to you then it would be nice to hear about any alternate images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review
 * Some of your captions need editing for grammar and clarity
 * Some of the captions were 5-6 lines long in description and I can try to shorten the longer ones for clarity now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * I can add longer text versions to some of the images as alt text. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * File:Akirakurosawa-onthesetof7samurai-1953-page88.jpg: where was this first published? Same with File:Kajiro_Yamamoto.jpg
 * For the 7samurai image, this was scanned from a public domain 1953 issue of 映画の友 (Eiga no tomo) an old Japanese film magazine. For Yamamoto, this was a publicity still from Toho studio when he was an established director. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we add this to the Yamamoto image's page on Commons? At present it assumes PD on the grounds of either being taken before 1947 or published before 1957 but doesn't prove either so this should be cleared up. As for the two images below, can the translations be added to their Commons descriptions as well? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * File:Yukiko_Todoroki.1937.2.2.jpg: please translate source and description, and also provide the original date
 * The photo is from ‎Kinema Shunpo, July 11, 1937‎. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * File:Shimura_Takashi.JPG: please translate source and description
 * Translation with date is Asahi Shimbun-Asahi Graph, January 22, 1956. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also noting in passing that your references include multiple harv errors which should be fixed before a full source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Harv errors, I am not sure which tool you may be running on them which gives you multiple errors. I will be happy to run whichever tool you have to replicate your errors. Currently, the citations are printing out cleanly in the References section of the article on my screen, and let me know how to run your tool with an example of a problem cite if possible. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At a glance, some of them are formatted as "Author, page range" and some as "Author year, page range" (eg Galbraith, pp. 127–138 vs Kurosawa 1983, pp. 180–187). Years are fine if there are two or more texts with the same author(s) that need to be differentiated but this is not the case with all of the texts (Bock is given with a year but only has one source). There are also AV sources which should ideally be timestamped (see Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) for an example of this in a featured article). I'm only interpolating here and these may not be what was meant. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If Nikkimaria could confirm that the year should consistently appear and always be applied or not applied. The article should be consistent especially for authors with more than one article being used by a single author and I'll change over to the preference which you indicate. Regarding the AV sources and website sources I have already started to remove some of the deadlink archive links which were showing up. I have updated Commons for the images requested above. At present, all of the items in the Sources section in the article now have the year associated with each entry. Thanks for the comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. When was the Yamamoto image believed to be published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Yamamoto image appears to be between 1941 and 1946. For Ucucha errors reported for the Sources section, these are cleaned up now with currently unused citations moved to Further reading section. All of the residual uncited harv ref notices are now in Further reading, and are residual from previous over-edits. They can be retained or deleted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Where was the image published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Country of origin for the photo is Japan for the studio image of Yamamoto. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll need to add some more information about publication history on the image description page, as per Grapple's comment above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Info added to Commons. The original image editor has not been active since 2009 and I could not ping him. The birth year for Yamamoto is 1902 and the image is consistent with a man in early middle age, about 1941 or 1942. Otherwise, I might suggest to drop the image if this is the only image which is holding things up. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Fowler&fowler

 * Reserving some space here for my comments. May I say, I'm delighted to see an article on one of the greats from that now-vanished world of Renoir, Bunuel, Bergman, Fellini, Tati, Hitchcock, Ray, Goddard, Truffaut, Mizoguchi, Wilder, Ford, Cukor, Sturges, ...    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From your list of top directors, I previously added some material regarding Kurosawa's high respect for Bergman in the closing sections of this biography article. It is of interest that from the top directors which you name that many of them respected each others work and commented on this in public statements. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I will start a review soon.  There is something that is puzzling me though.  It is the pictures.  First, I'm surprised that for a cinematic giant such Kurosawa there aren't more pictures: of his childhood, his youth, his family.  Second, the pictures there are in the article seem too Western-centric.  Why are we seeing pictures of  Dostoyevski, Ed McCain, Lumet, and of all people Speilberg?  Why not Akutagawa, a master of the Japanese short story and author of K's major hit, instead of Dostoyevsky. Or Mifune, Mizoguchi, ... instead of L and S.  I'm giving you a heads up because others will likely ask these questions.  When people read a biography, they're looking to understand what made him tick, especially at the crucial stages before ticking became easy.  :)
 * That sounds like you may have some images in mind, the Akutagawa biography article has a nice portrait of him, there is a movie still from the early film Uma which Yamamoto directed with Kurosawa, and there is an informal picture of Yamamoto as Kurosawa's mentor on Japanese Wikipedia, possibly you have your own preferred suggestions for new images from Commons? JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thing, and again, others will bring this up so might as well blurt it out: the article seems too long. There is some sort of emerging consensus at FAC that no article should be > 10K words and biographies even < 8K, unless the biographed is Shakespeare. Well, maybe it's not a consensus, but I've heard it enough times that I fear other reviewers will bring this up.  I will think about how best to reduce the article judiciously, i.e. without removing anything essential.  Please give me another day, and please think about these two issues.  Looking forward!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look forward to your comments whenever you are ready. This article is listed as a level 4 vital article and if some sections might need to be shortened or condensed then let me hear your thoughts on the best places you have in mind for it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand it is a vital article; otherwise, most likely, I wouldn't have appeared here. :) I've given an example here of how a section can be made tighter without reducing comprehension (IMHO).  It saves 200 words in this example.  I have self-reverted.  You can tell me where I went wrong, by re-editing my version in the article and self-reverting.  That way, we won't clog up this review. I can do this for each section, and, with your feedback,  your text will become much tighter.  I hope you don't mind; I know you have worked hard on this, but some reduction is needed.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we seem to have begun with the "Styles and main themes" section, I noticed that a large chunk of the first paragraph there has no citations.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That all looks correct and proper. That first paragraph there was meant more as a summary of the linked article which has many cites. Regarding your edits, they appear directed to keeping the existing links and the existing citations while shortening some of the text and making it tighter, which all looks good. It seems successful and it would be nice to see more. When you are ready you can install the new text and continue. There is no need to self-revert and just let me know when the next section(s) are ready. Let me know if there are questions along the way. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let me see if I can add a relevant picture. Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That image you added looks good. Here is a movie still on Commons from a film directed by Yamamoto where Kurosawa was the assistant director in 1941 here . Let me know which section you plan to do next and I can look for more images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very sorry,, I became distracted by other things. Well, let me make a time table, so we can get through this in a timely fashion: I will (i) do the first two subsections of the Legacy section (3.1 and 3.2) today, leaving the other minor subsections for later, or I might leave them as is; I will then work backwards through the biography section doing on each successive day (ii) 1.3.4 and 1.3.3 (iii) 1.3.2 and 1.3.1 (iv) 1.2.3 (v) 1.2.2 (vi) 1.2.1 and 1.1.3 (vii) 1.1.2 and 1.1.1 (viii) Lead.  So, it will take a little over a week, which some people might think is a lot of time, but I believe a vital article such as this deserves no less attention, and I hope it will be the better for it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The two pics of Mizoguchi and Rivette are well chosen, with the Rivette image having the advantage of Wikipedia being given authorization for use from the photographer himself. Something to consider if you are going with one image only in that section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Two do seem overmuch.  Also Rivette is high def; Mizo is an old slightly unfocused print.  So, I'd take out Mizo.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm having a hard time with the "Reputation among filmmakers" section. It is too much of a repetitive hagiography. I'll try to chop it down, but I'm afraid I'll have to remove some directors. We can't have director after director say the same thing, director after director get on the bandwagon, claim him for his own. The praise becomes meaningless and tiresome. The way I see it, there are three great directors there: Bergman, Fellini, and Ray. (One way to check is to look at their biographies in Britannica for comparison.) They have spoken about Kurosawa's work, so they should be included. Then there is a second list: Polanski, Bertolucci, Herzog, and Altman. They should be included. Kubric is a great director, but it is not clear he thought Kurosawa was as great as his assistant is making him sound. Kurosawa was not on Kubric's only two known lists of the best movies. Herzog, who is an admirer to be sure, says something more complex, and we can't reduce the quotation. Anyway, I'll try to do something. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice edits. That section includes the sentence, "Stanley Kubrick, in the reminiscence of an assistant, would have very likely included The Battle of Algiers, Danton, Rashomon, Seven Samurai and Throne of Blood...", which mentions 5 films that might optionally be shortened to mention only the 3 Kurosawa films among those 5 films. One such wording option might be "...would have very likely included the three Kurosawa films Rashomon, Seven Samurai and Throne of Blood...". I have asked that offer some comments and to be available for added review participation. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The desert island books (or in this instance movies) are always listed fully. Orwell had six, one of which was Gulliver's Travels.  I mean if your list has 200, and Akira makes an appearance three times, then it is not a big deal.  But if there are five, and three are Akira's, then it sure is.  I have made several desert island lists both of books and movies, always six after Orwell.  They may come in handy in Shipwreck in the Time of Coronavirus.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. Didn't realize I had "included." Have corrected.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: the section seeming too repetitive or hagiographic, I would err on the side of including material based on what has been said rather than purely who said it. Something that directly address Kurosawa would be more useful than anything that primarily discusses the field of Japanese cinema or just one of his films in isolation for example. I don't feel that the Herzog quote adds much as it is really about DW Griffith with Kurosawa mentioned in passing, and the material from Altman onwards could stand to be trimmed. Keeping the Ray quote, that would let us trim down to two paragraphs and a block quote, keeping things that are more directly impactful. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 09:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree entirely with your first sentence. I don't agree with everything in the second.  Desert island lists are not entirely about their compilers, in this instance Kubric or Herzog, but a commentary on Kurosawa as well, as they place him in a group that another director considers the defining ideal of the medium.  Herzog reflects purely on Kurosawa as well in that book; perhaps I can combine those.  As for the others, not so much Altman, for he does say something, but Speilberg, Coppola, ... I was holding back because I did not want to remove too many of John's citations.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * John, I've made Herzog a little more meaningful. The Rashomon bit has a different page number, which on my digital edition I can't figure out.  Could you please locate it, and add.  Also, I don't know the conventions of filmmaker pages, but could the remaining subsections could be reduced?  Could the two immediately after be put in external links and the last be reduced to honors and awards?  In any case, I will now move to the proper biography sections, working backwards from the last.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I need to defer to on this and he is more experienced at peer reviewed articles than myself. The quote (made by a previous Wikipedia editor) from Herzog which you refer to is from the unpaginated book on him in digital format and seems to be for a combined quote from Ch4 and Ch5 of that book by Cronin. It is available on Google books here  to verify precise quotes. The other sections you mention can be optionally merged into some of the sibling Kurosawa articles mentioned as "See also" and "Main article" links already listed in various sections in this Kurosawa biography article. Grapple X should be able to pick up on questions like this. Grapple X can answer with further comments here and for subsequent section trims and development.  JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused John. I see now that he is a mentor. Why is he weighing in at so late a stage in the game? He should have told you these things long before you made the nomination. I mean did he not read the article? I would rather deal with you, not with an absconding mentor. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, I deal with the nominator, not a ghost mentor. If your heart is not in this, I'm happy to withdraw without prejudice.  I like Kurosawa, and I'm happy to help you.  It's your call.  I'm in no hurry. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * JohnWick and I had been discussing this on my user talk page before and during the nomination; I've pinged you there if you want to look at anything we've talk about. I agreed to help John with any difficulties that may come up but as I hadn't actually written the article I felt it would be wrong to be listed as a nominator. In terms of "weighing in late", it's not that I think any of this material should go, but if you feel that the section should be trimmed, they would just be my choices as the cuts to make--it's all worthwhile material but when space is tight (and I did feel this was borderline in terms of length but felt it was better to cut it down in the face of critique than lose too much pre-emptively) then some of it could go. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for so nicely, and precisely,  explaining the content and the motivation.  I will be working again on this review later today.  Look forward to more from you.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Taking a look now (loved his films..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Another major childhood influence was Heigo Kurosawa, Akira's older brother by four years. - this comes across weirdly. Why not say, "Another major childhood influence was his older brother Heigo." - more natural and fewer words...


 * (Kurosawa had just turned 33.)  - why in parentheses and why is his age important..?

Overall, the article is comprehensive and has an engaging tone (which is great), however as I read on, the prose does get a bit wordy and veers into essay-like territory in the postwar period material. Am trying to get an idea of how extensive it is. I have tightened up some prose and am continuing reading Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Sorry but despite this being open more than seven weeks we simply haven't had enough commentary to form a consensus to promote, and even with Cas' input we'd still take time to get there, so I'm going to archive this and suggest that perhaps he (and F&F) could work with you outside the FAC process to improve the article before another try here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)