Talk:Kim Ki-young

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kim Ki-young has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 25, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (Film), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
	Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

Contents 1 NPOV? 1.1 Additional comments 2 GA on hold comments 3 Successful good article nomination

[edit] NPOV?

The article is well written, but I'm not sure if it's neutral enough as there is very little criticism of his work, and the critisms that are present are presented as positives, such as "was criticized for being an unrealistic break in the realistic style. In light of Kim's later career, critics today recognize in this cut scene an interest in the fantastic, and a jarring blending of genres". Epbr123 (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the director's work is recently rediscovered and sources that the main contributors can find from web focus on the matter, the current status of the article is at best. If you feel that the criticism section needs to include negative point of view, feel free to edit it with verifiable sources. --Appletrees (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees-- I asked Epbr to look over the article for criticism, since he is very experience in GA and FA process. His input and suggestions are appreciated--without him necessarily having to edit the article-- and will be taken into consideration. Epbr123-- About the lack of criticism of his work in the article-- the article is already quite long, and I intend for the criticism of each film to go in the article on the specific film. About its positive nature, to be honest-- barring semi-literate comments by users at DVD sites who obviously just didn't "get" the films-- I haven't found any negative criticism of this director's work. In South Korea, he was considered one of the giants of the local film industry from early in his career. He seems to have drifted off into his own idiosyncratic areas of interest, at which point he was ignored by audiences and critics. But as Appletrees points out, once he was "rediscovered" it's been one rave review after another again... I do understand your point. Any ideas what to do in this case? (Do we "balance" an article by giving equal weight to negative criticism-- if it can be found-- when the criticism, by number, is overwhelmingly positive?) A concern I have is about my citation form in this article. It being a non-controversial subject, I've lumped the citations together at the end of paragraphs, for better readability, rather than right after each fact. Is this OK, do you think? Also, is the article so large that the Filmography should be broken off into a separate article? Dekkappai (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, maybe putting in more description/criticism of the later, lesser-regarded films would help? Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I remember reading some contemporary reviews of his second film, calling it "disgusting" and a "disgrace to Korean cinema" or something like that-- today we'd say that shows Kim was "ahead of his time," but I'll see if I can dig up some of these comments. They'll be interesting, and add a counter-balance to all the positive stuff. Dekkappai (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Grouping the citations together at the end of the paragraph is fine, as long as any controversial statements have citations directly after. I don't think the size of the article is a problem; the filmography section is fine, as long as it doesn't get much longer. If there really aren't any negative critisms available, then the NPOV issue can't be helped. Epbr123 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I do think one of the very negative reviews of the second film (if I didn't just imagine it, and if I can find it) might be interesting anyway, for an idea of how he was viewed by contemporary critics who hadn't caught up with him yet. I'll add them later. Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comments

The article is well-written and comprehensive, but I do share the concerns above about neutrality. A bit more negative criticism would really help to balance it out, but I know how frustrating it can be when there's none to be found. :) A few other points:

• Personally I'd rather have the citations after the fact rather than lumped together at the end of each paragraph, simply because it makes it easier to check specific facts against their source. I don't think it's necessarily a problem, though.
• I think the PIFF image should be removed. There's already one fair use image that shows what he looked like, and I think a second is pushing it a bit. It doesn't really add anything to the article, IMHO.
• The "Neglect, rediscovery and death" heading could be seen as vaugely POVish (specifically, use of the word "Neglect"), but I'm not concerned enough to change it myself. Something like "Later life and death" might be better.
• The "Bibliography" section should propably be trimmed down. Most of those links are already cited as sources, so there's no need to repeat them.
• The filmography is fine, no need to split it into a seperate article. I've seen a lot bigger! :)

It's good work, though, and well-researched, so good luck with the GA review. PC78 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, PC78!

1. Citations: I think I agree with you, but Epbr123 says it's no problem (he's a GA expert), and moving them back in-text will take another day, and I'm facing a 3-day weekend offline, so I'll do that after GA
2. PIFF image-- Well, I think it's triply-important. First, it shows Kim at the Pusan Festival which really brought about his rediscovery. Second, it shows his wife, without whom he probably could not have had a career (at least in South Korea, at that time, his career would have taken a drastically different shape), and third, it is a survivor of the fire which took both their lives. I'll leave it for now, but if complaints are raised under review, it'll be a simple matter to remove it.
3. POV-- I've added some harsh contemporary criticism of the second film, and changed the "Neglect" to "Later career"
4. Bibliography-- trimmed a little... and added a little ;)

Again, thanks, and I think I'll put it up for GA review today. Dekkappai (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold comments

An extremely comprehensive article, to be sure, but I have a few issues (after some copy editing):

• Assertions like "His influence on the current generation of filmmakers in South Korea remains strong" and others like it do not seem NPOV, even if they are true.
• The referencing style of including all the in-line citations at the end of the paragraph makes it difficult to identify what exactly is being referenced by the citations.

Only a few comments, but they are rather large in scope. Please tell me if you will be able to do this within a week; if not, I will simply delist the article. This doesn't mean that I think the article is poor in quality, (quite the opposite) just that it may be too early for GA. Cheers, Kakofonous (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Kakofonous. I've tried to address your concerns:

1. Changed "His influence on the current generation of filmmakers in South Korea remains strong" to "Many current prominent South Korean filmmakers, including directors Im Sang-soo, Kim Ki-duk, Bong Joon-ho and Park Chan-wook, claim Kim Ki-young as an influence on their careers." (this is cited when this is discussed in greater detail towards the end of the article), and made a few more similar minor NPOV-ish changes. Also changed some other POV-ish adjectives. Removed a few "Strong"s, changed his cooking "expertise" to "experience", etc. Let me know if any more work needs done in this regard. (About his film work-- I've actually never seen one of Kim Ki-young's films, so the overall glowing appraisal of this director's films comes from the sources-- both Korean and international-- that I cite...)
2. No problem-- I had the citations saved from when I was writing the article, and just moved them inside the paragraphs. (I actually prefer to do citations this way, but put them at the end of the paragraphs thinking that this would make reading easier.) Dekkappai (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: After a few copy edits that I did (bound to be some mechanical errors, so long and comprehensive), it reads quite well.

2. Factually accurate?: Moving the citations around just made it look more thoroughly referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Definitely.

4. Neutral point of view?: The issues that I raised about POV have been addressed.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Good choices, with comprehensive fair use rationales. If some free images could be found, that would be great, as it's something that they look for at FAC.

As hinted above, this could easily become featured with a bit more work. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)