Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Fires on the Plain (film)

Fires on the Plain

Though this article has become gotten quite a bit larger since its time as a stub, I'd like ideas on how it can be improved, particularly on the lead and production (Where I've had trouble finding more information). If someone could look through the entire article as well and give advice, that would be appreciated. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Doctor Sunshine

Each bullet point denotes a section but I veer off into generalities occasionally.

• The lead doesn't summarize the article fully and what it does cover can be a little too specific. For example, in the second sentence, maybe you could save the fact that Wada is Ichikawa's wife until the production section, we don't need to know where the novel was published or the translator in the lead. I don't think we need the translator's name at all (except maybe in a reference), leave that for the novel's article. The cast isn't mentioned at all. Why phrase it the film "became a part of" the Criterion Collection? Another example of full but general coverage in the lead, I wouldn't bother with DVD releases but focus on when and where it was released theatrically: calling it a 1959 film covers Japan in my mind but when did it first reach the international market? I'd replace "foreign" with "international". Also, there's a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs while, at the moment, there's not really enough information to warrant even two paragraphs.
• In the infobox, names should generally only be linked at the first mention. The only repeated name is Funikoshi but in this case I'd removed the narrator field instead, that's really more for narrators who don't appear in the film, which is mainly documentaries. Also, flags are being phased out, per WP:FLAG, and since there's only one release date it would be assumed to be the Japanese release. Also, I'd just write "minutes" in full.
• The plot seems short for a 104 minute movie and a lot of stuff is glossed over. You mentioned on the talk page that you didn't cover his meeting with three soldiers and he killed "only when necessary"? Killed who or what? You don't need to go into detail for everything but things like that should be mentioned. In the third paragraph you call him Private Tamura again, his rank doesn't need to be reestablished. It gets a little unclear when the one guy shoots him and then pleads with him, why the reversal? Also, I'd spell it out rather than alluding to what he comes to understand. I'd also avoid using "apparently". Either it's clear he dies or not. A good method is to read some full reviews, scholar and historian types usually include the ending, and go with the consensus.
• Tables are generally reserved for lists with more than two columns, I'd got with a bullet list. Again, soldier shouldn't be wikilinked three times.
• You don't need to explicitly state every source in the main text, that's what the references are for. Good writing is concise writing. In general, I think this article's going to need some copyediting. Here's a link usually doled out by automated reviews on the subject (I remember it being much shorter but there's some good advise there). In terms of wikilinks, common words like island (in the plot section) and film shouldn't be linked and something like atom bomb might benefit from some context, i.e., piping it to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was still Daiei at the time, not Kadokawa Herald, so keep it consistent throughout the article. I generally call someone by their full name once per section (as many readers won't read an article from start to finish) but within a section I switch to the last name after the first use. Part of the concision thing. You're switching back and forth between full name and last name only. Metaphors should be avoided in encyclopedic writing, thus I'd replace "blessing" with "approval". And who is Ooka? He's established in the lead but not here. Some prose advise, the main idea of a sentence should be expressed first, for example, "To achieve a realistic tone, actors were not yadda yadda." (Contractions are frowned upon too.) I don't understand your bracket usage here, you're using them to provide redundant information.
• Distribution includes theatrical release, so I would move this section down and rename it "Home video" or "Home media". Establish context, "it" what? On what sort of "tape"?
• What critics have appreciated the tone, etc.? I would avoid characterizing critical views, such as with "quite harshly". Personally, I read Bosley's review as a positive one: it is a horrific film in what it depicts and it does so quite successfully and he got that. The way you're framing it, it seems like a pan. Again, saying Variety is more positive is your opinion, just tell us what they said. Bock's comments seem better suited to a section comparing the differences from the source. Most articles have bullet point lists of things editors have noticed but it would be great if you could get a referenced section on this. Tessier and Quandt might better fit an "Analysis" type section. (If Ichikawa said that he dies, why are you still using "apparently"?) The response from Ichikawa should probably be in a different section, or sections, too. Sato and Bock as well. Then we're back to proper reception stuff again with Kehr. I'd like to know in what ways it's like Letters from Iwo Jima (also film titles should be italicized). The sentence about Japanese critics not liking it is rather abrupt and seems like it should be part of a different paragraph. I know it can be hard to get a lot of Japanese views but it's a famous film so there's got to be something more in English out there. I like the Criterion Collection too but I think you're emphasizing them too much, this section is about the film's reception, not the DVD's. He insists that Fires on the Plain is an example of what? I think this section could use more concise quotes, some restructuring and a large chunk in the middle should be divvied up elsewhere.
• The referencing looks a little wonky. There are a number that aren't formatted properly. There's a lot of repeated references, you should be using the "ref name" thing. Again, even in references an instance is wikilinked on the first use only. For videos, you should be putting their role in terms of the video, not their profession, i.e., interviewee. The year in ref 39 shouldn't be linked. Is the bibliography meant to be a further reading section? I'm not sure about how you've refed that book in general. I used a similar retro book, with different chapters by different authors, for Branded to Kill, you might want to try formatting those that way. There weren't any objections during FAC.

Anyway, hopefully my comments will be of some help. It's definitely coming along. Good work. Doctor Sunshine talk 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes your comments proved very helpful. I don't mean to blame others, but the part about "Killing only by chance" was there when I started to edit this article frequently and much of the reception section wasn't actually added by me (in particular the beggining and the Variety and bosley review). The part in the reception concerning "He insists FOTP" is an example is taken (as you could tell from the reference) from the criterion release booklet, and I wonder if it makes a difference including it or not. The meeting with the three soldiers lasted a short time (ie. maybe two minutes) and strikes me as unnimportant. But just so you know the relation to the rest of the film, here is a recap of it: Tamura (after getting away from the bombing of the hospital) is climbing a hill, when on the horizon, he spots three Japanese soldiers. He runs to them and reports himself (as you'll remeber, as Pfc. Tamura, though again I just decided to go with private) to them as Tamura. Though the soldiers are suspicious of Tamura for a moment, they begin to observe "Fires on the Plains" and Tamura suspects that they are signal fires made by villagers who are fighting against them. The leader (apparently, as mentioned in yet another undisscussed scene where Tamura breifly meets them again) says they are just burning rice stalks (This is I believe the second mention of the mysterious Fires on the Plains by characters) and that his family back in Japan use to do it. The leader then mentions that they need to mave, or they wont get to palompon, where there is an eveacuation of troops. Tamura asks if he can tag along with them, to which the leader says that he can, but only if he can keep up and then proceeds to talk about how he and his little team eat flesh in New Guinea. He then jokes that he can come along, but that he'd better be carefull or they'll eat him (Tamura). The leaders team then laughs, and one of them notices that his pack of food and supplies is bursting with salt which he stole in a sort of misadventure (I can add these scenes if you want). Tamura then lets them have some of it, and they leave and find the group of soldiers who are gonna cross a road into Palompon. As you can see, it is a significantly more detailed version then I'd add to the article (if anyone wants it on), but I just thought you'd like to know more about the scene I spoke of. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the use of "Apparently" if you look at part of the talk section was added by some editor for a reason I just didn't understand. He said something about it being different from the end of the novel. I'll change it. The bibliography wasn't added by me either. Mentioning all of the Criterion supplements was something I did add, and I've seen it in several other articles and wondered if it is proper. One more thing, the current "Distribution" section was renamed by Collectonian, not me. There is one more thing, yes, I agree it's a famous film, and probably with the Burmese Harp and The Makioka siters, Ichikawa's most famous work, but I don't speak Japanese, and what I could get is what's in there. When I read that article talking about the Japanese critics (albeit, breifly), it was about the only thing on them I could find if you know where to get a review from Japanese critics at the time, please tell me. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have assumed you'd written everything. Regardless, the article's starting to shape up. Keep at it. Regarding the plot, yes, I think information like that would be good to include. Foreshadowing the fires on the plain and the cannibalism, even threatening Tamura and stealing the salt helps illustrate the tone of the film. MOS:FILM recommends a plot section between 400 and 700 words, currently I'd estimate you have about 300. The way I see it, in a 104 minute movies there are 52 two-minute segments, which means you should be aiming for about 10 words for every two minutes of film. What I mean by this is that even a two minute sequence can be important in a film, or at least worth a sentence or two. Use your own discretion, of course, but it's got room to grow.

I'm not so good with Japanese either but sometimes translated material is avaiable, Sato certainly counts though it would be nice to have some examples of the mentioned mixed and negative reviews. I don't know of any of hand but there's a bibliography at the end of the Senses of Cinema article on Ichikawa that might help—though only one, besides the Quandt book, appears to be in English. You may be able to get it at your library or via an interlibrary loan. ISBN 0-8161-8520-4. There's some more potential sources here. Tons of stuff on Google Books and Scholar. It looks like you should be able to add a healthy Themes or Analysis section too. Doctor Sunshine talk 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. I often assume that the most prominent editor makes most of the material. I will add the parts where Tamura meets the three soldiers and the other parts. I believe I was hessitant to adding material because I was actually working to take away material for Letters From Iwo Jima which me, Collectonian and Girolama Savanorola decided was excessively overlong. Even with the amount of words for FotP and LFIJ being significantly different, I decided to be cautious of adding material. I also mean to add the exact minute of the quotes for the citations from the criterion release interview. I certainly will look at the stuff you've bought up, but I'll probably do some of that tomorrow, and after that I might take a short wikibreak. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No rush. It's a lot of stuff to work on so take your time. I'm just glad to see there are people working on classic film articles like this. Kudos, Doctor Sunshine talk 05:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. I've added the scenes you've requested, though they've come out signifacantly longer then 10 words. Though that is to be expected, as some parts need more details then others. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No trouble at all. It's shaping up. Good stuff. Doctor Sunshine talk 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the American and Japanese release dates, but the former is reliant on IMDB, which, I know isn't always accurate. Oh, and I looked at a book with reviews by Tadao Sato, but I only found a small mention of Fires on the Plain. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing is that the Variety review is for 1961. Perhaps the reviewer spoke Japanese? But, since we can't have contradicting information, I'll remove mention of the American release date. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I've also recently added a Analysis section, which I thought ran too short (though there is bound to be something else you showed me which can go in). So, I added something from the Reception section. Looking at some of the Reception section, I realized that a lot of it wasn't actually made of reviews, but that it would probably fit well into the Analysis section. Do you think there are any particular parts which would fit well into the Analysis section? The reception has been called a bit long, so I'm asking you so the sections remain balanced. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now extended the plot section, which I intend to look at soon, and I'll shave off parts, as the summary is now over 700 words. I think this may be a case of just re-writing overly long sentences. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I also just moved quite a bit of stuff from the Reception section into the Analysis section. Yojimbo501 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)