Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ran (film)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 08:35, 21 May 2009 [1].
Ran (film) edit
Review commentary edit
As much as I love this film, the article has some problems. The article is missing citations om some major sections such as "Acting Style". There is only one citation in Casting as well. Several sections I think could use some more inline citations.
According to WP:FILMPLOT the film's plot should be shorter (between 400 and 700 words), where here it is over 900 words (I've taken out reference texts as well.) The film here also cites imdb five times which is not a reliable source and shouldn't be seen on a Featured Article. It also doesn't feature much in ways of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The lead should be expanded more as it doesn't go into scale of the production, themes, etc.
- Notified: User talk:Palm dogg, User talk:Alkivar, User talk:Kathimcgraw, User talk:Doctor Sunshine, User talk:Epbr123, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Japanese cinema task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of work was put into this article, but Ran could use some work here to be improved upon.Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notification request Could you please notify the main editors and projects and post those notifications at the top of this FAR? Thanks! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified all the communities. Is there an easy way to note this to continued editors? I don't know how to find who contributed the most to this article. Sorry, this if my first FAR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Replied on your talk page. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Replied on your talk page. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I've notified all the communities. Is there an easy way to note this to continued editors? I don't know how to find who contributed the most to this article. Sorry, this if my first FAR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your note. You're right, this article could be improved a great deal, but as I'm in the middle of a deployment to Iraq, I'm unfortunately busy. I suggest as a first step you look at the Article when it was promoted to Featured Article to see what kind of changes have been made. Good luck. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FilmReference.com provides a list of resources, including books and articles, here. Considering the age of the film, it is likely that we will find the best resources in print and not online, so heavier research may be necessary. This is another good list, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, balance and lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:26, 6 May 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.