Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akira Kurosawa/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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [1].

Akira Kurosawa edit

Akira Kurosawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
dylanexpert: Dylanexpert (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... this year is Akira Kurosawa's (1910-1998) centennial year. It is also the 60th Anniversary (August 25th) of the Tokyo premiere of Rashomon, the film that opened Western eyes (and Western film markets) to the cinema of Japan and, by extension, Asian cinema as a whole. This year is also the 25th Anniversary of the premiere of his final masterpiece, Ran.

Kurosawa needs no introduction to anyone who knows or cares about the art of film. A website, They Shoot Pictures, Don't They (TSPDT), that gauges the reputations of films and filmmakers, ranks him as seventh among all directors.

This article consistently maintains a neutral point-of-view. Various views of individual films are expressed in the article with which the nominator does not agree, in the interest of presenting different facets of opinion on a work. In addition, a concise Criticisms section is included that, again, contains some negative judgments about the subject with which the nominator does not agree.

With my co-editor, Vili, we have made certain that the article is well-written and comprehensive, and all assertions have been supported by correctly-formatted citations.

Every effort has been made to make the article as brief as possible. Everything from the "Life and career" section has been eliminated that is not relevant to the main theme: the development of the subject as an artist and his struggle to realize his creative vision. Several tables and lists have been taken out of the main page and given separate articles. But Kurosawa's life was, like his films, an epic story and, as all 30 of his films are extant, a cursory summary of his output, which would be appropriate for other, less prominent, subjects, was simply not possible in this case.

As articles longer than this one (e.g. Michael Jackson) have been chosen as Featured Articles, we feel that those who will decide whether this article deserves featured status will take the importance of the subject into account.

We would very much like this article to be chosen as a Featured Article soon so that it can selected as Today's Featured Article on September 10th, the 59th Anniversary of the date that Rashomon won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, establishing Japanese cinema -- and Kurosawa -- as a major force. We will, of course, given time constraints, understand if this is not possible, but this is our current goal. Dylanexpert (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 10th is only eight days away, and Raul is likely to schedule the TFA for that sooner; it is rare for an article to be promoted that fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sept 10 TFA is scheduled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no dab links, no external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they re in the original.
  • Current ref 241 ... this is a newspaper article, and should be formatted as such, not as you currently have it "Eugene Register-Guard..." Further bit here - newspaper title should be italicized (use work field, not publisher, in cite news template). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 251 (Battle beyond the stars..) is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source? Further note here, IMDB is only really reliable for very basic facts about the film, which this is not being used to reference. You need to have a better source. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 252 (Powers...) lacks a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 253 (Skiyaki Western...) lacks a publisher. Likewise what makes this reliable? See note above. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 254 (The Clone Wars..) lacks a publisher
  • Current ref 256 (TSDT...) lacks a publisher
  • Likewise ref 257 (IMDB)...
  • Likewise ref 258 (WEBSITE). And it should have a better title, I'd think
  • Likewise 259 (KUROSAWA FILM STUDIO)...
  • Likewsie 261 (AFC...).
  • Likewise 262 (ONline MBA...)
  • Likewise 263 (FILMS...)
  • Likewise 266 (AK100..)
  • What makes http://akirakurosawa.info/ a reliable source?
  • We don't use abbreviations such as Univ. or UP in our references. Consistency is important, you have Univ. Press of Mississippi and University Press of Mississippi, be consistent.
  • Likewise, consistency on using place of publication on books, either use them always or not at all.
  • Suggest culling some of the external links - especially any that are used as refs (No need for the IMDB links or the TSPDT link, as you're using them as refs) External links should ADD information not contained in the article, not just exist as a place to add information.
  • I'd also question the lack of use of some of the further reading. Just from the title, I'd think the Martinez would be very useful and helpful to replace some of the dodgy refs I question above. I'd also think the Sorenson would be vital for aspects of his career. And many of the others would be great for themes and motifs over his career.
  • One further comment. For the sheer size of the article, I'd think the lead would be ... beefier. It really is skimpy for the proze size of the article text.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further bits. You misunderstood, I'm not questioning the further reading items inclusion, I'm questioning why they aren't used as sources. Several of the sources questioned above on reliablity need addressing still. And you can drop locations from the book refs if you like, that's one valid option. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got it. And you have a good idea. So I took the Martinez book out of Further reading and put it in sources. Then, for Battle Beyond the Stars, I removed the IMDB reference and replaced it with a Martinez reference. So that's two issues solved. I changed the reference to the Eugene Register-Guard (newspaper) so that now it reads correctly in italics. I dropped locations from the book references... though frankly, it still seems silly and totally unnecessary to me. I eliminated the whole passage about the "Sukiyaki Western" (which I never really felt comfortable with including anyway) so questions about the reliability of its source are no longer relevant. "What makes http://akirakurosawa.info/ a reliable source?" - I really don't know how to answer that question. What is the standard of reliability? You, subjectively, say that IMDB is not a reliable source; I, equally subjectively, say that it (mostly) is, or at least is more accurate and complete than any other film reference source that I've ever encountered... though I eliminated the IMDB reference that you were dissatisfied with. So what is the objective standard to this very subjective question? I will elaborate on this issue on your talk page. Dylanexpert (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Also note that since that dispatch was written, the standards for FA have changed to require "high quality" sources. IMDB isn't just me, it's a consensus from the WP:RSN, which is a good spot to go to for questions about sources. As for the locations, it's a consistency issue, making the citations consistent with all the other citations used in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for http://akirakurosawa.info, I probably cannot call it "reliable" according to Wikipedia's stringent standards, as the site's own About page modestly asserts that it is "not definitive." However, there is no such authoritative source that I can find that "proves" the assertions on the "On home video" paragraph. The vast majority of sites that mention Kurosawa DVDs want the reader to buy them, or are Top 10 lists, etc. I have always been uncomfortable anyway with the mention of all the DVD brand names in the para. So I propose just editing the paragraph down to the first two sentences, "All thirty films directed by Kurosawa are available on DVD worldwide, most of them from more than one distributor and in more than one region code. His movies are also becoming increasingly available on Blu-ray." These are simply facts: there is no single scholarly source in the Internet that "proves" them. Is this satisfactory to you?
It's perfectly acceptable for something like this to use Amazon or a similar large retailer to show that the DVDs are available. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the change and saved it. As far as I can see, all your objections (except debatable aesthetic ones) have now been addressed. Thanks for your input! Dylanexpert (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very nice to see an in-depth article on such an important director. I'm finding style issues here. Just the top for the moment:

  • What's your date style? You use day-month-year in the first graf and infobox, but month-day-year in the second graf. Choose and apply consistently throughout the entire article.
  • "Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Kurosawa released approximately a film a year." Clumsy verb. Studios release films. Distributors release films. Directors direct films or make them.
  • "American AsianWeek magazine". Magazine names are italicized, but what is the name of this magazine? American AsianWeek magazine? AsianWeek magazine? If the latter, do you perhaps want to refer to it as "the American magazine AsianWeek"?
  • The use of spaced em-dashes is not considered proper here per our Manual of Style. Preferred style is unspaced em-dashes; spaced en-dashes are an acceptable alternative. Choose either and apply consistently throughout.
  • The caption of the infobox image is truly bizarre: "Kurosawa demonstrating swordsmanship to Toshirō Mifune (not pictured), probably on set of Sanjuro (1962)." So we know the identity of a party not pictured in the image, but we don't know when it was taken? Really? Unless this is a crop of a larger image showing Mifune (which the file page does not indicate), that is hardly credible.—DCGeist (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to Comments: Thank you both for your input!
To Ealdgyth: 1) Removed ALL CAPS in those two cases, which I believe were the only ones. 2) The Eugene Register-Guard reference was a news, not a web ref: I have made the change (thanks for catching that). 3) The refs that were publisher-less have had publishers added. 4) "Web Site" is the title of Toho's foreign-language (Japanese) site, and the title just is what it is: I can't arbitrarily change it. 5) Consistently changed references to remove "Univ." and spell out "University". 6) Many books don't list place of publication on their title or copyright pages, and I'm not about to make guesses: I believe location must be optional in a book reference, not mandatory. 7) From the external references, I deleted the IMDB and TSPDT links, as you suggested. 7) The "Further reading" section was very carefully considered: the Shakespeare books (by Buchanan, Davies and Leonard) have significant content about Kurosawa because of the latter's Shakespeare-inspired films, Throne of Blood and Ran (much of the information that allowed me to include the Shakespeare volumes came from the website http://akirakurosawa.info, which is *not* a superficial fansite, but engages in significant scholarly inquiry, and is thus authoritative); Noel Burch has a very significant chapter on Kurosawa which was nonetheless not used in any of my references; and the appropriateness of the Cowie and Dresser references is self-explanatory: therefore, I am retaining all the volumes cited in "Further reading". 8) As far as the introductory section is concerned, I'm sorry, but I have a pet peeve against articles that contain intro sections that I think are too long; as a devoted reader of Wikipedia, when the article is as detailed as mine is, I don't want the intro section to be long as well; I want it to be concise and succinct. Every single statement made in those three paragraphs is one that no reputable film scholar would dispute, yet they are all later explained in the main text and supported with references for non-scholars. I don't think that section should be "beefier": I think it's just right.
To DCGeist: 1) Made dating consistent in article and infobox (Month-Day-Year). 2) Changed "released a film a year" to "directed a film a year". 3) Removed "American" from "American AsianWeek"; 4) For the file page of the photo used in the infobox, I changed the summary (under "Portion used") to make clear that Mifune was in the uncropped version of the photo. (No, I don't know the exact date on which the picture was taken, but I can tell from internal evidence -- the age and costumes of the participants in the full photo and other photos obviously taken during the same shoot, the appearance of the set, etc -- that the picture had to have been taken in the early 1960's, with Sanjuro rather than Yojimbo the more likely film, and I gave the release date of the former film, 1962, as the last plausible year in which it could have been taken.) Dylanexpert (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Many image issues. Just looking at the first half of the article:

Comment: The Reputation among filmmakers (and arguably the Homages and allusions) subsection, as well as the Legacy section are currently grab bags of stubby, bullet-point-like grafs. They need to be reworked for more flowing prose.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Due to the impending merge of {{Infobox actor}}, you may want to switch to {{Infobox person}} now and make the most of the extra fields in that template. PC78 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as confused and frustrated as if I were invited on public property and then arrested for trespassing. The whole purpose of a Commons section is to include in it images that anybody can take and put in their articles without challenge. If I use the Commons section and am challenged for it, what’s the point? At the same time, I can see your reasoning that these particular images, which might at first have seemed to be “free,” may not be. So my argument would be that, because of their ambiguity, perhaps I might keep the images unless they are challenged by someone claiming to hold the copyright for them. If you don’t accept that, then I will “rehost” the images as you indicated… but you will have to let me know how to do that.
For the images of Akira Kurosawa himself (there are actually two disputable images, not one) I grant that these are probably not free images, but again, they shouldn’t have been in the Commons in the first place. (Who’s minding the store anyway?) I’ve contacted the New York Public Library website from which the images originated and asked if I could use them in my article without a fee. They said that they did not require a fee, but that I have to find out about copyrights by third parties. So I guess I will have to rehost these also as Fair Use images.
The Yojimbo and Red Beard images already have fair use rationales for the articles in which they originally appeared. Do I have to write a whole other rationale for *my* article?
I will rewrite the rationale for the Tora! Tora! Tora! image to make it a bit more detailed.
I would argue that the “Reputation among other filmmakers” subsection represents a nice change of pace from the “flowing” style of the rest of the article. And I believe you exaggerate somewhat when you describe the whole thing as “currently grab bags of stubby, bullet-point-like grafs.” For example, the Robert Altman paragraph “flows” fairly well. However, in a couple of instances (Spielberg and Scorsese), the grafs are not written as complete sentences, so I will change those.
Since you used the word “arguably” in your description of the “Homages and allusions” subsection, I am taking that as a subjective judgment and will keep that part as is.  : - )
Forgot to sign. Dylanexpert (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies on image use and non-free content can lead to frustration, but they are policies and we're all obliged to follow them. Especially if you want your work recognized as among Wikipedia's best, you should be aware that it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with those policies and what they require from you. Here are the two basic pages: Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content—the second is a guideline page, but it incorporates the full text of our non-free-content policy, while providing more detail and examples.
I hope you've gotten over the shock of realizing that the Commons, though a wonderful resource, is not an example of perfection in this universe. While the vast majority of items there are indeed free, it is a volunteer site just like this (the Commons is organizationally related to Wikipedia via the Wikimedia Foundation, but it is by no means a "section" of Wikipedia), and people make mistakes—there are all sorts of items there that don't belong there. (Sometimes that's not due to a mistake by the volunteer who introduced the image—copyright laws and interpretations of those laws can change, as well.) It's your responsibility to check the licensing status of each and every image you want to include in an article here to make sure that it's correct. You ask, "If I use the Commons section and am challenged for it, what’s the point?" The relevant point is simply that you didn't do your job—evidently, you didn't know that it was your job to verify images' licenses before bringing an article to FAC; now you do. Commons remains a great, though imperfect, resource for free images—greater for some subject fields and eras than others, it should be kept in mind. You say, "So my argument would be that, because of their ambiguity, perhaps I might keep the images unless they are challenged by someone claiming to hold the copyright for them." Sorry, no, that's not how it works. First, and specifically, there's no "ambiguity." The information in the licensing tags on the Commons pages of the three screenshots makes very clear that they are under copyright and do not presently belong on Commons. Second, and generally, we do not sit and wait for challenges to patently erroneous claims that items are in the public domain—if something appears in all likelihood to be under copyright, we treat it as if it is under copyright.
Yes, you will have to rehost the image of Kurosawa from 1957 on the set of The Lower Depths if you intend to use it. The Commons image of Kurosawa on the set of Throne of Blood, apparently a publicity photo, was evidently taken before December 31, 1956, and is in the public domain if it was published before that date. However, the movie was not released until January 15, 1957, so while it is certainly possible, it is not safe to assume that the photo was published before Dec. 31, 1956. Unless evidence can be found that it was, yes, it too must be rehosted as a fair use image if it is to be used here. By rehosting, I simply mean uploading the images to Wikipedia as fair use content—I see you did that with the infobox image, so you obviously know how. If you want to be a good Commons citizen and assist in removing the inappropriate hosted images from there, by all means, but this is not the venue to get into that. On the other hand, an issue you will have to grapple with here is whether the inclusion of three fair use images each of whose primary purpose is to show Akira Kurosawa abides by clause #3a of our non-free content policy: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
You write, "The Yojimbo and Red Beard images already have fair use rationales for the articles in which they originally appeared. Do I have to write a whole other rationale for *my* article?" Yes, you must. That's a basic requirement of our policy. Here's the guideline page that goes into greater detail on the matter: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
You write, "I will rewrite the rationale for the Tora! Tora! Tora! image to make it a bit more detailed." My suggestion that its rationale "should be improved to discuss its function in the context of the article's critical commentary on the film" was actually intended as a hint that, under our policy, it is not a particularly effective choice of image to represent the movie in an article about Kurosawa. I am sorry that I was not more explicit in making that point. While our non-free content guideline does support the use of "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television", our best practices urge us to find screenshots that directly support or expand on textual commentary. I'm afraid that someone who draws a harder line on non-free image use than I is likely to identify this image as "decoration." On the one hand, it appears to have no direct relationship to the text beyond the fact that it's an image from the film. On the other, it should be possible to find an image from the film that does inform us more about Kurosawa's style and/or methods, shouldn't it?
You write, "I would argue that the 'Reputation among other filmmakers' subsection represents a nice change of pace from the 'flowing' style of the rest of the article". I disagree. The shift from full-fledged, conventional paragraphs to a style in which over half of the section's 13 paragraphs are no longer than a sentence (and, as you note, in several cases, not even a grammatical sentence) appears odd, unmotivated, and unprofessional. This is similarly true of the Legacy section, if not to the same extent. This "change of pace"—"nice" or not—does not represent writing of a "professional standard", as required by our criteria.—DCGeist (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely revised the "Reputation among filmmakers" subsection to make the implicit structure of that subsection explicit and to organize it into coherent paragraphs so that it reads better. (If you think that passage was "odd, unmotivated, and unprofessional" before I just changed it, you should check out the article's View history to see what a mess it was when I first started work on the article.) I have deleted the "Homages" section because I had absolutely no idea how to make it "flow" and it just wasn't worth the hassle. I will have to get to the problems with the Legacy section and the images later.
I do hope that you have exhausted your objections to the article, but in case you haven't, I would appreciate it if you would give them all to me now, because I will be traveling from the middle of next week and will have little to no time to work on this project then. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To date I have merely raised those issues that leapt out at me from a quick glance at the article—concerning the lede, the images, the obviously rough sections at the bottom (Reputation among filmmakers looks much better now—good job—and I just edited Legacy myself). I am afraid I have not yet had time to read through the entire article, giving it the careful attention it deserves. I look forward to doing so, but I will not have time myself until next weekend.—DCGeist (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is great to see the article here, and being given a good deal of work. Without reading the text in detail I see a few key issues:
  • Image problems need to be fully resolved. There appear to be images that are probably still in copyright but which are being claimed as free, and non-free use images where I'm not sure they are necessary to illustrate this article (and would therefore fail one of the non-free use criteria). The example I noticed was the screenshot from Tora! Tora! Tora!, which could be justified for the article on that film, but I doubt the same can be said for the article about the director.
  • Sourcing problem. I noticed that Kurosawa's 1983 autobiographical work is extensively quoted, including in places where either an independent source is needed, or the WP article language needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it is reporting Kurosawa's view. Example (footnote 49): "It was Kurosawa who, with his mentor Yamamoto, had intervened to persuade Toho to sign Mifune, during an audition in which the young man greatly impressed Kurosawa, but managed to alienate most of the other judges."
  • There are some one sentence paras that don't reflect an appropriate style and need to be consolidated.
  • Care with claims. Example: "Many commentators regard Seven Samurai as the ultimate expression of the artist’s heroic ideal. Joan Mellen’s comments are typical of this view..." - however Mellen is the only cited source. So how do we know that "many commentators" have this view of Seven Samurai? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The extreme overuse of non-free images has got to go. It made this list and has even more since that report was run. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely unfortunate (not to mention careless) that you chose to (double) oppose my site without even bothering to read the previous commentators. If you had, you would have realized that many of your objections had been voiced already, and if you had checked out the "View history" you would realize that even on the day that you posted here, I was already addressing the problems you have mentioned. When I get finished, all the non-free images will have Fair Use rationales. (You seem to get upset with non-free images whether they have Fair Use rationales or not.) Please note that many of these images were taken from Commons when I was naive enough to assume that on Commons every image was free (as indeed they are supposed to be). Since the problem was pointed out to me, I have made every effort to rectify it, but I'm not finished yet. As for your objection to "one sentence paras", please look again: I doubt if you'll find them now.
I will address your other objections when I have time and energy to do so. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of your comments are directed toward Hammersoft, myself, or both of us. I have struck my concern about the single-sentence paras. I'm not quote sure why you are concerned that some of the objections had already been voiced. As the FAC process continues and comes to a conclusion, the delegates who close the noms have to make an assessment of the consensus of editors around whether the article meets the FA criteria. I was deliberately adding/concurring re the image issues others have raised. On another point, (again not sure whether you are addressing Hammersoft or myself), but I'm not concerned about non-free use images per se; rather I am concerned not just that they have a Fair Use rationale, but that the rationale is adequate to defend their use in this particular article consistent with the guidelines. The only image I checked out in any detail was the Tora! Tora! Tora! image. The fair use rationale currently includes this: "Screenshot from a copyrighted Hollywood motion picture". However the caption says "all footage he had already shot was scrapped." That being the case, I'm not sure how the image can be from the released motion picture. In any case, I don't think a still image from a moving film for which the director was fired will be capable of meeting the non-free use criteria. I'd delete this image and focus on the rationales for those images that are most closely tied to the article about the director himself: an example might be File:Akira Kurosawa Throne of Blood.jpeg, in which he is pictured actually directing. Under replaceability, the current text states "As the motion picture appears to be in copyright, it is not possible to replace the image with a free image." However, the image itself is not from the motion picture, so this doesn't make sense. But I agree it is a very promising image to try and include in the article, so i'd work on tightening these up. For what it's worth, you have my sympathies for the size of the task. I have used a small number of non-free images in FACs and it has always been a struggle to get them exactly right. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dylanexpert: You are correct. I didn't read much of the oppose commentary. In this case, I don't need to do so. This article currently contains 23 non-free images. That is an extreme amount of non-free imagery. 23 non-free images places this article in the top 15 of all articles on Wikipedia in terms of non-free content usage...something we discourage. To be an article in the top (rather bottom 10% of 1% of 1% of all articles is excessive and extreme. Extreme usage requires extreme cases. What makes this article so different that it requires that much non-free imagery use in order to be able to adequately convey its meaning in an encyclopedic way? This is nothing more than a biography of a director. I'm not seeing a strong reason, much less an extreme reason, why we must include so much non-free content.
  • This does not even get to the issue of whether images have rationales. It's not enough that images simply have rationales. They must be acceptable rationales. There's many rationales among these 23 images that are seriously lacking. "To provide an image of the actor Toshiro Mifune, who became a film star in Japan as a result of this film, as indicated in the article's text." (File:Drunken-Angel-1a.jpg). To provide an image? I.e., decoration. We don't use fair use images decoratively. "To illustrate this groundbreaking film which introduced Japanese cinema to the West." (File:Rashomon 1a.jpg). Again, decoratively. Is there something significant about this scene from that movie that was commented on in press or other secondary source of the time? If so, then it should be noted in the rationale...but it isn't. It's just a scene, apparently randomly chosen, if we are to believe the rationale. "To illustrate Akira Kurosawa at the time the film was made." File:Akira Kurosawa Throne of Blood.jpeg Again, to illustrate. Decoration. Was there something radically different about his appearance at the time the film was made that was noted in secondary sources? I'm just scratching at the surface here, and this is not a thorough review of all the images. It's blatantly obvious there are serious failings throughout these images.
  • The amount of usage is extreme, and it MUST be trimmed before it reaches featured article status. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I think Hammersoft is right. I've removed some of the images that seemed to me most markedly 'decorative': that is, they added nothing essential to our knowledge of the director that could not be adequately conveyed by the text. The non-free use rationale issue remains for all the other images - i've just started to narrow the field to the more significant images around which there might be prospect of some legitimate discussion about use. I expect there will however need to be more culling. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW I would also note that, whether or not the films, including the early ones, were published in compliance with all US formalities, none of them are in the public domain in either US or Japan (see also Japanese copyright law and its sources). Not that anyone has suggested they are: I'm just pre-empting any discussion of that as an option for dealing with any of the images (there was also some old discussion on the article talk page). hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a thread on the subject at the article talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2010 (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/Akira_Kurosawa/archive1&oldid=1085814088"