Talk:The Cranes Are Flying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): War films task force

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): War films task force

[edit] Cleanup? NPOV?

The article speaks in first person and addresses the reader. Also contains perhaps too many emotionalities. Emotional text can be subtle, but this is coarse. Contained many typos. In addition, the language is unprofessional (very much resembles an amateurish review), therefore unencyclopedic. -Mardus 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong in addressing in first person? (don't tell me about academic traditions, just quote from WP:MOS, which does not completely precludes "we", by the way). And the topic described is emotional. Subtle/coarse is POV. And it is not a review but plot summary you are referring to. `'mikka (t) 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to draw attention to the fact that using the second person ("you") is discouraged in articles, so as to keep encyclopedic tone. See WP:MOS#Avoid the second person.

• I do know that it is the plot summary that I had in mind then.
• Subtle/coarse is indeed my view.

• The use of "we" here is not particularly good, because not all people have seen the movie, thus it would be better to substitute

"We are introduced to a Soviet family ..." with "The viewer is ..." (or in plural).

Neither would anyone want to identify with the person who wrote the plot summary, no matter how much they'd likely wish otherwise. -Mardus 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, if anyone is looking for a professional review, look for a Fujiwara essay linked in the article. -Mardus 13:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for, they wil find it. What's the point? `'mikka (t) 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the current plot synopsis and a thinly veiled opinion of the movie is sub-par, which is why I suggested the external review. An encyclopedic entry is not supposed to opinionate (as opinions may contain bias, whether right or wrong), but inform, in order for the reader to make up his/her own mind about this movie. -Mardus 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with articles about books, films, etc. is that it is very difficult to draw a line between original research and copyright violation. Formally, in wikipedia one has to describe opinions of known critics rather than to write own essay. Plot summary would be an exception: a summary is a summary is a summary. And writing about an inappropriate tone of a summary is questionable. In my opinion the tone here is OK. Way better than the event-list style: "He kicked his ass, boinked her, got his own ass kicked and bought himself a big gun." `'mikka (t) 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That said, I don't particularly protect the current version. I merely disagree with the tag "cleanup-tone": the descriptive part has no serious tone problems, and the plot summary is the matter of taste, which differ: just the same I may criticize the plot summary in our "Master and Margarita" in long lengths. `'mikka (t) 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is rather that the tone of the article and especially the plot summary is both over-the-top subjective and overly emotional — therefore not encyclopedic. I could have instead added the __tone-cleanup__ tag instead, which is most neutral.

Adding to that, in some countries, film plot descriptions are under copyright.

Gone With the Wind (film), Der Untergang, Apocalypse Now are some of the better examples of explaining film synopses, IMO. -Mardus 23:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stepan's lines at the end of the film

Stepan makes a speech asserting that they will never forget those who died in the war, but peace must be maintained.

When in late 2006 I saw the movie in the cinema, I remember Stepan saying either that they'd never forget those who died in the war, or instead words of hope that this kind of war would never happen ever again (or both). I wonder which was it... Granted, audio quality of the picture wasn't very good, because the film was so old and the theatre was not a cinema theatre either... -Mardus 22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)