Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Branded to Kill

Branded to Kill

This is about the 1967 Seijun Suzuki film. I've scoured all English language sources I've been able to get a hold of over the past six months or so, plus the few Japanese pieces I was able to with my remedial skills in that area. My thanks to Skarioffszky and Benjamin.pineau for providing information I never would have found otherwise, Erik (I think it was him), Ilse@ and FilmFemme for their invaluable critiques and Andrzejbanas for really getting this thing started in the first place. And thanks to anyone reviewing this for your time and for not counting me as a douchebag for basically giving an awards speech directly on self-nomination. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't state it explicitly but, as is the convention, I'll add that this was promoted to GA class in May and was peer reviewed in June. Doctor Sunshine talk 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I was thinking of nominating this awhile back, you really took it over after I shakingly added the plot in. Everything is relevent and well written. It seems good to go for a featured article. Andrzejbanas 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Muchos gracias. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I like the article - It's a lot more in depth than other Featured film articles and it's well set out. There's a couple of things I'd like to point out though. 1) In one of the image captions, there's the word "discombobulated". Is it possible to simplify this term for those of us who aren't gooder at English? At the risk of sounding dumb, I've seriously never heard of that word before, and probably neither have a lot of people. My general philiosophy is too keep writing at a highschool level all over, and for more scientific articles, at a higher grade. 2) The image in the section "Reception" makes some of the text jut out; it'd be great if you could swap it to the other side to remedy this. Other than that, everything looks good. I have no problem supporting. :) Spawn Man 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Yeah, I had a feeling discombobulated would have to get the ax eventually. I just love it because it mixes the pretentious with the silly. It and indubitably. I'll survive with a synonym though. For the latter, do you mean the paragraphs are sticking out or was pushing the Legacy header over on your screen too? I've fixed it so it won't obtrude into the next section but the former's common everywhere.[1] Admittedly, I'm just holding out on this one to maintain symmetry but I'm willing to reconsider. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it and shifted the other pictures around to retain the symmetry... Feel free to play around with it though. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That does read a little better. I'm sold. Doctor Sunshine talk 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, looks good and is pretty comprehensive as far as I know. The only problem I have with it is the plot section, which feels too busy, but I guess it's a necessary compromise between telling the main plot points (and some details that are discussed further in the article) while staying at a reasonable length. I like Tokyo Drifter more though. - Bobet 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad you mentioned that. I think I've whittled the plot down enough since the GA suggestion that it can stand an extra sentence or two. The sink drain shot is among the most famous in the film so it definitely deserves a mention. I'd tended to skip over a lot of the absurd touches that make the film in order to pare it down to just the facts but I've added a few touches so hopefully it's a better balance now. Many thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support -- while I find the article to be in otherwise great shape in terms of referencing and writing and comprehensiveness, I still don't find the Criterion Collection DVD cover's fair use rationale to be sufficient. The rationale says that it "illustrates current marketing methods", of which there is no actual coverage in the related Home video section. Per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The usage of the DVD cover does not appear to enhance the article in any way besides as an identifying image that would not be missed. If there is concern about breaking the monotony of the Reception section, I would suggest possibly implementing a quote box in the cover's place. I'd like to give the article my full support, but I'm concerned that this will set some precedent for future articles in saying, "This Featured Article displays a DVD cover with no supporting context, why can't this article of a newly released DVD have one, too?" If this can be addressed, I believe that there would be no other issues with Branded to Kill. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I didn't win you over on the talk page. Well, I'm all out of arguments. I think its loss is unfortunate but it probably won't be harmful to anyone's understanding. C'est la vie. Thanks for your comments and help with the article. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)