Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katsudō Shashin/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose 03:46, 15 August 2014 [1].

Katsudō Shashin

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take you longer to read this blurb than it will to watch this film—the oldest surviving example of Japanese animation, from possibly as early as 1907. Actually a printed filmstrip fastened together at the ends to be viewed endlessly, I suppose it may qualify as both the shortest and longest Japanese film. The depth of characterization and subtely of the intricate plot make the film a rewarding experience, especially upon re-viewing, but no more so than your inevitable review will be of this most special Candidate. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from the unfathomably vexed Crisco 1492
  • Katsudō Shashin (活動写真?, Moving Picture) ... who writes "活動写真" (katsudō shashin, or "moving picture"), - Do we really need the translation twice in the opening paragraph?
    • Removed second instance. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose ends - I don't think 35mm film is a person
    • We've disagreed about inanimate whose before. It'll take considerable peer pressure for me to budge from this. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't budge, "whose ends" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the oldest to survive is Hanawa Hekonai meitō no maki - from what year?
    • Added year. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live-action films for these devices were expensive to make; possibly as early as 1898 animated films for these devices were on sale, and could be fastened in loops for continuous viewing. - Don't think these two are related enough for a semi-colon
    • Don't know why I did that. De-semicoloned. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • an old Kyoto family - are they named?
    • No, and neither was the dealer who acquired it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any other critical reception? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A number of short articles proclaiming the discovery, but none of them fall under the what you could call "critical reception". The English ones can't even get their facts straight ( a lot of claims that it was hand-drawn, when the briefest peak at the severely off-register red dispells that idea). I'd be thrilled if anything else interesting turned up. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing about its position in the animation canon either? Blast — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's one of those things that are so obvious that you couldn't possibly source it, like "the sky is blue" or "water is wet". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Jun'ichi Kouchi has him as a possible creator for the film. Can we source this? Or other speculation?
    • Added by an IP 30 July (two days ago) without a source. Given it predates Kouchi's work by up to a decade, and the styles are drastically different, I'm calling BS until someone can provide a source. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Generally the images look a bit jumbled. Perhaps if you moved the video down to the "History" section this would look a bit neater
  • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Katsudō Shashin.jpg - Needs something a bit more specific than "1900s", since that could be the century and not the decade. Also needs a Japanese PD tag.
  • Added {{PD-Japan-film}} and fixed date. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Katsudō Shashin (1907).webm - I'd put c. 1907–1911, to be more accurate. Doesn't affect copyright in any way, so it's just a matter of proper documentation. Also, it needs a Japanese PD tag.
  • Added {{PD-Japan-film}} and fixed date. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Namakura-gatana (1917) toy movie filmstrip—single frame.png - Needs a Japanese PD tag.
  • Added {{PD-Japan-film}}. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose and images. Good work! Will this be the earliest film for which we have an FA? Find out! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherlock Holmes Baffled is older. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buzzkill. Sock (tock talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Use a consistent date format
  • Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Translation for Matsumoto chapter title? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I only have two comments, and they're so minimal that I don't even care if you fix them or not.

• Any reason two captions have "c. 1907"? It seems like only one is needed.
  • I removed both, since they're both redundant and the actual date isn't known. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• An IMDB external link would be nice [2]
  • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is good, but not flawless. First of all, as per Litten's most recent research explicitly states it " was originally a 35mm celluloid loop film with Edison perforation (it has now shrunk to 33,5mm)" - This means the Clements' source is actually incorrect in the identification - and I doubt that Clements every examined the film in person - so its not likely his mistake. He may be an apologist, but its not fair to label it his error. Though I think the fact that the production was decidedly amateur (according to Litten) that it should be added to the "creator unknown" sentence because it is a well-educated observation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first point has gone over my head—what are you asking me to change? For the second point, I don't see Litten calling the film "decidedly amateur", but rather low-quality, which Matsumoto says suggests it was from a smaller company. I've added that to the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gladly support. It's nice to see a short article getting credit for it's detail all the same. I made a small change (Now lost → Now lost), which you're welcome to undo, it just came across a little odd to me. Otherwise, this article is well-researched, informative, and very well-written. Including the full film is a very nice touch. Excellent work! Sock (tock talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.