Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

[edit] Abbas Kiarostami

I have been working intensively on this article for the last two months. The article has been expanded significantly. It has been copyedited several times too. Several other users help me with copyediting the article and/or commenting on the article (User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, User:Mtevfrog , User:Francis Tyers and many others) Moreover it was peer reviewed and also GA assessed (promoted to GA). Since GA assessment the article underwent another major editing where its size was reduced nearly 27%. I think the article is in a good shape after all. Based on feedbacks from reviewers I have the impression that it is featured worthy. I would be very happy to have your comments for further improvements. Sangak 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Image:Khayyam translation.gif is, as far as my understanding goes, not fair use in an article outside the article of the book. It would be worth checking over other images for fair use status. - Francis Tyers · 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Photo replaced. I think the previous one was also fair, as we were discussing the Khayyam's poetry. (note: Khayyam has only one poetry book). The photos were checked in recent GA assessment too. Thanks for your comment. Sangak 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the individual editions, including the cover work will also be copyrighted, so even if the text is free use and the cover image is free use, the ensemble might not be. - Francis Tyers · 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Every edition may have a different copyright policy. In any case, I replaced Khayyam's photo. The new one is free. Sangak 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support The article has had a great deal of work and effort put into it and has now been copy edited and full information on seperate pages. It has been condensed and referenced extremely well and anyone familiar with the work of Kiarostami will know that the information on his style is a very important part of the article and highlights the important elements of his work beautifully. The article is constructed in a coherent, structured manner and covers all aspects of Abbas's work -even covering every one of his films in the career including the short films. The only thing I saw was that the fair use rationale for some of the images wasn't given, but this now has also been done!!. The article looks quality. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support — This reads like an excellent piece of work; well done! I could find nothing significant to criticize. The only minor issue I found were a couple of periods following the double parentheses at the end of some sentences. It would have been nice to read a little about his childhood family, but that's pretty secondary to the article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Because it's about a person, it needs Wikipedia:Persondata. I have added some of it (it goes at the bottom between external links and the categories) but I think you should enter the alternative name/s (I'm not sure about that) [1]. Also it appears to have some British spelling mixed with American spelling (Javascript told me so). It doesn't matter either way, but the whole article should be spelt in the same way. Which is it? That way I can help out with finding every occurance. It is an excellent article and only these minor things need to be cleaned up. Good job. James086Talk 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks James for your comments and kind helps (adding Wikipedia:Persondata). As far as I know Kiarostami has no alternative name. In terms of British spelling or American one, I will try to follow one of them. I have no special preference. I like both American and British. Unfortunately I am not an English native speaker and it is somehow difficult for me to recognize this point in the article. I will try my best though.Sangak 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I replaced "dialog" with "dialogue" (all other appearances were "dialogue". so I will use the British one.). There is one "realise" which is accepted in British usage. I replaced "color" with "colour", "neighbor/ing" with "neighbour/ing" and "center" with "centre". "Honours" is used in the article. I think "honorary" has no other spelling (I searched in google). I cann't find any other words. Please let me know if there are some others. Thanks again. Sangak 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! I've just noticed that someone (User:Cbdorsett) was trying to change all spellings to American one. So I reverted all the changes I explained above. So let's make it American this time. I changed all other "dialogue"s to "dialog". Please let me know if any other change is needed. It looks like uniformly American to me. Thanks again. Sangak 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support After a bit of confusion there I think all remenants of British spelling are gone. It's a great article and deserving of featured status. James086Talk 10:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I have been witness to the improvement process of this article and it seems to me that , finally, it meets the criteria required for a featured article - Marmoulak 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Informative, very well written and sourced. A minor quibble, though, about the main infobox image: why isn't it taken directly from the Commons? Uploading a duplicate image to English Wikipedia was an unnecessary step. — WiseKwai 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Convert gif files to pngs
  • =Films about Kiarostami= can be merged with something
  • =Filmography= section is empty. Content is needed, or else you can put the main link in the ==See also== section
  • Consider removing set pixel values for images. Without a set pixel value, the images will be resized to what a user has specified in his or her special:preferences
  • Taste of cherry.gif needs to be moved inside the =Individualism= section
  • Avoid starting sections with left-aligned image. It makes the text harder to read.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My plan is:
  • I will consider changing gif to png as soon as I am done with other comments. I think it will take a long time. Is this a strict requirement?
  • Do you have any suggestion where I put it? Personally I like the way it is. I can for instance merge it with secondary literature: "Literature and films on Kiarostami". I am not sure merging makes the artile more accessible.
  • I added a context. If it is not fine, I am going to move it to "Film career" section. Please let me know if it is not OK. Then I will move it to "see also".
  • Done!
  • Done!
  • Done!

Thanks for your comments. Please let me know what you think about my plan.Sangak 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems other reviewers (James086) has a different point of view about left sided images. He prefers the image of "Bread and ..." at the beginning of the paragraph. (my former edit has been reverted) I personally don't care whether it is at the begining or not. Please discuss with eachother if you like. Thanks. Sangak 10:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That was a mistake. I thought I was only reverting my edit. Moving the image was a good idea. I hope I have corrected what I undid with this diff:[2]. I also added {{clear}} which means that the image won't offset the title below (Visual and audio techniques). I apologise for any confusion I have caused. James086Talk 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. The conversion to png and subsequent upload shouldn't take more than 5 mins. As per the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format, gifs are only used for animations.
  2. There are only two films on him, so having a section with lists is kinda pointless. How about converting it to prose and adding it to =Reception and criticism=?
  3. Filmography section is also too short. Having it in the ==see also== section would be better.
  4. =Honors and awards= could do with an introduction
  5. "The dark graveyard in The Wind Will Carry Us" image can be moved to the section below
  6. The image "Where Is the Friend's Home?" pushes the heading =1990s= to the right, please could you rightalign the image?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Progress report:
  • Done! I noticed three images were in gif format. I converted them to png.
  • Done!
  • Done!
  • Done!
  • In my browser the image is exactly infront of the paragraph discussing the topic. Moving it one section down makes it a bit ugly in my browser. But in case you want, I will do it anyways. Please let me know.
  • Done!

Sangak 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support : Good work, perhaps the place of birth could be added to the article. STTW (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support Great job --Rayis 13:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support Very well done. --Mardavich 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support An impeccable job and invaluable contribution - Very well done. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- (pending insertion of pngs) well written! Good work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to see more complete image captions, but other than that I'll support. I'll get on it. - Francis Tyers · 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I've done a few. The 'Book cover' one needs to be done, as does the 'Accepting the award'. What is the book, how is it relevant, and what is the award his is accepting? Also, what is 'Walking with the wind' book about? Why is 'Close up' an important film? See Wikipedia:Captions. - Francis Tyers · 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the improvements:

  • Caption of the award has been fixed.
  • Caption of Walking with the wind has been fixed.
  • Caption of Close-up has been fixed.
  • Caption of the book cover: I need some more time as the language of the book is Greek and I am waiting for translation.

Thanks. Sangak 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Congratulatory Support on final caption change. - Francis Tyers · 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support-Very informative and better than the only other comparable article on a director, Satyajit Ray! Excellent work! Tombseye 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Long overdue, if u ask me.--Zereshk 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely FA quality. Well-written and comprehensive. - Anas Talk? 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, very fine example of hard work of several users. Great improvement and definitely a FA quality. - Darwinek 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative, very well written. Congratulations all! Hoverfish Talk 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. My god, a Wikipedia film article that is well written and informative! Whatever next? FA definitely!! Cop 633 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe I should just close the debate now since the outcome's obvious :). Still, there's realy nowhere that needs to be improved, fixed, etc. This is definitely FA, and certainly front page quality once this FAC passes.--Wizardman 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well done!, although it needs some more polishing but I fully support its nomination! Amir85 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Very informative. I have not seen a more informative article in wiki --alidoostzadeh 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is very well-written. Khoikhoi 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very well. Just add more information about his personal life please. --♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Done! info about his life in Iran + the image of his place of early study (thanks to Ernst Stavro Blofeld)+ the story behind his sunglasses Sangak 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, per Cop 633, --Pejman47 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator's (and other editors') hard work since GA pass. Disclaimer: I have reviewed, and listed, this article for GA status and have made minor copy editing. Please disregard my vote if you feel this is a conflict of interest. Fvasconcellos 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- gif images still present. Please replace by pngs =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Done! Sangak 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support, the same as the others. I have seen the author respond to many different reviews and suggestions to better the article, and it has worked. The article is now of FA quality. :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - As per everyone else, it is certainly FA quality.Azerbaijani 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-structured and well-referenced article, written in an impressive collaborative effort. Siba 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Incredible article, well-structured, well-referenced. Beautiful! Congrats! -Yupik 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to be a party pooper, but The "Cinematic style" section is quite long considering it's got a main article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The size of the whole article is in the acceptable range. I personally prefer to keep the cinematic style as it is. Once I tried it to trim it more and it clearly reduced the readability of the section (I also got objections from some editors for that). The main article on cinematic style is quite big (40 kb) and we are also planning to expand it even further. In my eyes the most interesting part of Abbas Kiarostami is the cinematic style and it will be a pitty to make it even shorter. For instance the whole Micro-Digital section has been summarized in a few sentences. Any further trimming will reduce the quality of the article. I think at this stage such issues are the matter of tastes. In any case please feel free to delete those sentences that you find unnecessary. Thanks.Sangak 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I believe that an article on the filmmaker should focus on his life and the totality of his works, while the his cinematic styles should get the full treatment of a separate article. Who knows, they may both become featured articles. Xiner (talk, email) 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As there is no consensus between reviewers, I can only suggest you to trim the article as you wish. I really cann't do much on this. Thanks. Sangak 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (response) - anybody familiar with Kiaroatami's work will know the cinematic style is very important in understanding his work . Like an article discussing the influences and style of an artist or painter and his techniques the section detail is very appropriate as it is and has been cut down enough as it is. Lets not ruin it now. Ernst Stavro Blofeld "I've been expecting you" 13:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand it's an important subject, but if you compare the section to the main article, it's almost the same size. Why have the main article when they're so similar? This only encourages people to add to the section instead of the separate article, making the latter redundant. I understand it's very interesting and you want to convey the topic to others, but I can see all the references to his films cut out from the section and the main ideas would still stand. Everything else can go to the separate article. Xiner (talk, email) 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The main article is 40 kb while the section is 19 kb. We are also planning to expand the main article, as it is no more a subsection of Kiarostami's article and we do not face size limitation there. Kiarostami's article is composed of 22.5 kb film career + 19 kb cinematic style + 18.5 kb the rest. I think the ratio is quite OK (to my mind). Please note that there is also a main article for Filmography. Sangak 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Status update: 28/28 in support
  • Comment This is a great article, & has come a long way even over the last 2 weeks since I looked at it. Just a couple of quibbles:
  • Too many irrelevant wikilinks: I particularly noticed the following in the lead section: poet, photographer, painter ... Why link to these words, which are well-known to any reader (unless you're trying to be helpful to non-English speakers)? Even the word child is linked (to an article which informed me that the plural is children). Both rural and villages are linked, too (I'm not sure we need "rural" at all there!). And why the link to car? I can see why you might link to road movie, for example, but no one is going to be any the wiser after following the link to car ("a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor").

OK, I'm just having a bit of fun to make you sweat a little! These are minor faults, & easily remedied (tip: the Delete key may come in handy).

  • It just happens that the Khayyam poem quoted in the Poetry and imagery section is quite well known in English in the Edward FitzGerald translation:
"How sweet is mortal Sovranty!"-- think some:
Others--"How blest the Paradise to come!"
Ah, take the Cash in hand and waive the Rest;
Oh, the brave Music of a distant drum!

I suggest you use this version—unless there's a compelling reason to use the version in the article (eg you prefer it, it was quoted in English in the film, ...).

Good luck! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.