# Talk:On the Art of the Cinema

This review is transcluded from Talk:On the Art of the Cinema/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 07:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


### Images
OK. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


### Infobox
OK. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


### Naming conventions
Kim Jong-il
On Wikipedia, the convention is to use the full name in the first instance, followed by a surname in subsequent instances.  Some editors repeat this convention for each section. So for each section, use the full name first, followed by "Kim" for second usage. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I have done so. I've used "Kim Jong-il" whenever Kim Il-sung is also discussed to avoid confusion. Changes: diff – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
 Doing...

Actual impact on North Korean films themselves, however, is disputed
@Finnusertop: I've read this many times and I find it too informal.  Could you clean it up a bit?  There are many different ways you could do it, but something like this might work as a good starting point: "The influence of the book on North Korean films is disputed." This sentence could then be briefly expanded to summarize the dispute. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I've replaced it with the following: "Its actual impact on North Korean filmmaking, however, is disputed. Films from before and after the publication of the treatise are very similar in style and many contemporary films breach various rules laid out in On the Art of the Cinema." Is this okay? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: it is certainly an improvement, but try to minimize the use of words like actual, however, very, and many, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and other guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I've separated these two phrases to form a new paragraph and got rid of the problematic words. It now eliminates a problematic POV that suggested that because the book had a political role it should have had an effect on filmmaking (no sources suggest this). It now reads: "The impact of On the Art of the Cinema on North Korean filmmaking is disputed. Films from before and after the publication of the treatise are similar in style and many contemporary films breach various rules laid out in the treatise." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Question: why doesn't the lead mention the two main theories in the book–the theory of literature as humanics and the seed theory? Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It should; I've added it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice work, but please very briefly tell the reader what they are.  Remember, the lead should be able to standalone as a summary. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I have done so now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


### Background
 Doing...

After his graduation in 1964, Kim Jong-il engaged in...
@Finnusertop: graduation from what and where?  I visited the parent article to find out and it looks like there's a bit of a mystery here. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The source you are using says Kim Il-sung University. Can you add that? Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I see an issue with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing of the David-West 2009 source in this section.  Please review. Is the David-West source copyrighted? Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: you are right; some of it is very closely paraphrased (since the source is copyrighted, this is unacceptable). I believe I have fixed it now, but let me know if you think something that should be refined: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for making an effort.  Looking at the diffs, there is now an unclear anachronism (creative industry instead of government) and inadvertent downplaying and omission (prohibition instead of burning of books). You might want to leave it but come back to it, perhaps with a second source. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: You're right, "creative industry" isn't the same thing as "state arts bureaucracy". I tried to find an equivalent to avoid close paraphrasing but the meaning was altered. I have returned "state arts bureaucracy". I have also returned the destruction of the conference archive, as it seems relevant enough. I tried to see if some other sources have something more to say about this, but I couldn't find anything. If you think this section needs more work, I'll take another look more sources. Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a simple three-step checklist to help you fix the close paraphrasing and avoid it in the future: 1) do exceptions apply, such as proper nouns or free content?  If yes, leave it, if no, then 2) look to see if the material is a good candidate for quoting and attributing. If yes, add the quotes and attribute the source, if no, then 3) rewrite the material using your own phrasing and wording that best summarizes the material. Now, see if you can apply this to the above problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Viriditas. In this case, I've reproduced proper names as they appear ("Kim Jong-il", "Aesthetic Review Meeting" and other party organizations, names of films). There is no free content involved as the source (David-West 2009) and all others are copyrighted. As for quoting, I don't feel that it's necessary here; the source offers no particularly poignant wording and skillful paraphrasing leads to a more encyclopedic outcome here. I've further changed the wording to avoid close paraphrasing. Are we in agreement that the level of paraphrasing is now acceptable? Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Phrasing like "In total, Kim had obtained around a decade of experience in the state arts bureaucracy by this time" is far too close to the source material and requires paraphrasing.   "State arts bureaucracy" could easily be changed to government arts council or something else that fits into the NK political structure. "Decade of experience" also needs to be paraphrased. Again, please review the current content because I don't want to raise this issue again. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience, Viriditas. I have rephrased the problematic parts to read: "Kim had worked in the government arts administration for almost ten years by this time." I also altered wordings in other sections to avoid close paraphrasing. Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I need more patience, who doesn't?  Good work. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Although Kim is known to have been privately interested in Hollywood films,[7] he forbade discussion on 'foreign' film concepts at the Aesthetic Review Meeting
Per WP:QUOTEMARKS, double quotation marks should be used for "foreign".  It isn't exactly clear if you are quoting a POV or not. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
"Foreign" appears in double quotation marks in the source. I am unsure as to what the source is trying to do here: quote Kim (the source quotes Kim immediately after the sentence) or express its own POV. In either case, I'm quoting the opinion of either Kim or David-West.
WP:YESPOV says "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and recommends explicit attribution (quoting). I could quote the source as saying that Kim: "banned discussion on 'foreign' film concepts". (single quotes per MOS:QWQ). I've implemented this. Change: diff.
In any case, MOS doesn't recommend quoting a single word with double quotation marks: MOS:QUOTE#Point of view: "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can often seem to imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words, like "supposedly" or "so called", might be inferred." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but it seems like a case of paraphrasing is needed instead of quoting.  In other words, why quote here at all? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
How about: Kim forbade discussion on foreign film concepts? Paraphrasing instead of quoting, and eliminating the quotation marks around "foreign" altogether. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please try it and see if it works. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is a concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### New reviewer needed
@Finnusertop: due to personal health problems, I am unable to finish this review. Please request a new reviewer or make a comment on the GAN talk page.  Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I've made the template steps required by the FAQ at WT:GAN and posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New reviewer needed. I thank you for the wonderful contribution you have made so far to this article and the review. I wish you all the best. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:On the Art of the Cinema/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am about to start the review, full disclosure I am aWiki Cup and a GA Cup participant. If anyone would like to reciprocate I have my own GAN (Mexican National Trios Championship) needing a review and a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my GA review. I usually provide my feedback in portions over a day or so, so don't be surprised if I keep popping in with stuff for a while.  MPJ-US  03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


### GA Toolbox
I try to always start out by hitting the GA Toolbox provided to us, often it finds issues that can be addressed quickly.

Peer review
Y nothing that is worth mentioning, I believe the weasel phrase that is called out is sourced and will be included in the general review

Copyvio detector
Shows possible violation at 45.1% to one website, but that's a direct, attributable quote so I don't think there is a concern there. Everything else is listed as "unlikely" so I am good here Y
Disambig links
((aye}} no problems

External links
Source 30 - Probably dead
Source 31 - Probably dead
Source 25 - Connection Issue
Comment: Working archive links already provided to all three. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Glad someone is on the ball, too bad that someone wasn't me. No problems here Y  MPJ-US  12:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
So the first sentence states that this book “has become essential”, yet later on it lists that the impact is disputed? Leaving the “essential” statement by itself and not listing the dispute until later makes it initially seem like it’s a universal fact. Those two opposite statements should be together to paint a complete, balanced picture in the lead. And really should we not clarify that it's "essential" in North Korea - where he was a dictator, without a qualifier it's like saying "Mein Kampf" became essential. Not giving the whole picture.
 Question:   Can you be more specific about where you spotted this problem? No sentence says that the book "has become essential" (in verbatim). There is a phrase: "The seed theory has become essential to North Korean film theory", and this checks out when compared with the section on seed theory. I think you are confusing two things (which is my fault, since I've written a confusing text): The seed theory is influential in North Korean film theory. But the book as a whole might not have been very influential in North Korean film industry. Do I have to rephrase something in the article to avoid this confusion, MPJ-DK? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe the lead originally had that phrase, the current version of the lead is fine the way it is. MPJ-US  20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
”original theories, that” => “original theories, which”
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
”centers around” => “centers on”
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
”It has called a” => ”It has been called a”
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"whether or not Gap Ryong participates in the revolutionary movement, he dies" – I am not sure what this sentence is supposed to convey?
 I've amended this to read: For example, the seed of film The Fate of a Self-Defence Corps Man revolves around the choice facing the main character, Gap Ryong: to perish under oppression or sacrificing one's self for the revolution. Its seed could be summarized as "whether or not Gap Ryong participates in the revolutionary movement, he dies". (If you still find this confusing, I have other options to use as example here). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, much better wording. MPJ-US  20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
”the book is considered the highest authority on cinema” – This is a weasel phrase the way it stands right now. Not attributed to a source at this point in time, not identifying who considers it an authority? That statement really needs to be put in context to be encyclopedic.
 Question:   If you are referring to the image caption, it repeats what the adjacent section says in these words: "The work is considered the most authoritative guide on filmmaking in North Korea." This is attributed to Kwak, who in the original source says: "On the Art of the Cinema that was written by Kim Jong-il has been widely recognized as the highest guidelines [for] the process of making films in North Korea." Should I put widely in there to attribute this statement to what is a general consensus among scholars? Other sources tend to put this more poetically, calling it "the bible of" North Korean cinema. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes it was in the caption, which has no attributation to Kwak as far as I can tell. But specifying "in North Korea" in the caption it goes from being a universal claim to the very specific claim that the source backs up. MPJ-US  20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 Question:   Good point. I've added in North Korea. Does this suffice or do you want me to duplicate the reference in the caption? What about the point I raised above: should I write that it's widely considered authoritative? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
“sloppy practices” is a judgment statement, what is sloppy to one person may not be to someone else and should not be presented as a fact, can we get some facts on what those practices were?
 This paragraphs recounts Schönherr's analysis of the book and its impact, so any judgement statement is presented as a due account of a significant viewpoint. I think the right thing to do here is to attribute it directly by quotation to avoid presenting an opinion as fact. I've verified from source the exact words Schönherr uses and amended the article to read: an attempt to thwart the "sloppiness and thoughtlessness" he had encountered. There are other options I have in mind if you are not satisfied with this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"""I think that works, it's clear that the statement is backed up by the source. MPJ-US  20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why or how did Kim consider it a failure?
 Amended to say: Kim himself considered his treatise a failure. Films it had contributed to were enjoyed at home, but abroad they were ridiculed. North Korean cinema could not compete with the quality of foreign, and in particular South Korean, films. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Much better.  MPJ-US  20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Who is Shin Sang-ok and why is his kidnapping tied to this? The article neglects to give the proper context so that someone who does not know the details already is not sure exactly what this is about.
So he kidnaps Shin, then Shin studied the book and does stuff to please Kim? There is a part of the story missing that could be elaborated on please.
 If there is a story to be told in North Korean cinema, it's this one. Unfortunately for us, for most sources on the subject this is the only story that is told. I've tried to keep this to minimum in this article, but you are right, some context is needed. I elaborated: This directly prompted him to kidnap Shin Sang-ok, South Korea's most famous film director, in 1978. Shin and his wife, actress Choi Eun-hee, were kept in North Korea for eight years under cruel conditions. Nevertheless, Shin studied On the Art of the Cinema to please Kim with the kaijū film Pulgasari, which credits Kim as the executive producer. Kim was delighted with the film and allowed Shin and Choi to travel to Vienna, where they were supposed to negotiate a deal for a sequel. The couple used the opportunity to escape, and ended up in America. There is so much more on this, but I think this suffices to establish both context and the link with the book. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Perfect, just enough context for it all to make more sense. MPJ-US  20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
”By authoring the work, Kim Jong-il gained social and political power, and secured Kim Il-sung's confidence, making the former's assuming of leadership of the country possible.” – This seems overly complex and really could benefit from being rewritten, possibly as two sentences instead of one long one.
 Amended: By authoring the work, Kim Jong-il gained social and political power. He secured his father's confidence, thus making succession possible. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. MPJ-US  20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The “On Acrobatics” does not have a year listed, the rest do.
 Question:   I've exhausted every means to research this (library catalog searches, search in North Korean sources both online and in print, etc.) to no avail. The definite way to access it is in Selected Works of Kim Jong-il that currently run into volume 24, in Korean, and as you can imagine these are not easy to come by. We have two options here and I wish input from you:
Leave it as it is, or 
Leave the entry On Acrobatics out entirely. I'm leaning toward this option, because this is not presented as a comprehensive list in any case. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Leave it in with no date, you can source he wrote it, just not when - half the info is better than no info. MPJ-US  20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
”The Red Chapel continuously consults the treatise”, I assume that should be past tense, unless he still consults it even after the movie was finished?
 Question:   this is describing things that happen on-screen in a documentary. Per MOS:TENSE, this should in in present tense. Right? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh it was part of the actual documentary, not him consulting the treatsie as he was filiming it? I totally did not read it that way, but yes if that was shown as part of the documentary the tense is correct.  MPJ-US  23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 I clarified this to read: is shown continuously consulting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I am good with this change.
Just another round of input.  MPJ-US  21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Caption of the status should start with "A bronze"
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Caption should read "a camera"
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"make-up and" = "make-up, and"
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"The hero of the story in particular embodies Chajusŏng." should be "The hero of the story, in particular, embodies Chajusŏng."
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"cancelling" should be "canceling"
 Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a couple of additional comments that I noticed on the final read through, nothing major. I believe that is my complete review of the current version. Once these are addressed I'll give it another read through. So I am putting this on hold for up to 7 days to give you time to address all the comments.  MPJ-US  11:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I am seeing a lot of great updates, there are only a few things left to do and you're definitely going in the right direction.  MPJ-US  20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, MPJ-DK. I'll work out the remaining problems. There is a bit of a tension in sources. Some say this is "the most important" book on cinema. Others take up this proposition and critically analyze it. I need to strike the right balance here, and be careful not to weasel it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: - looking at the feedback from you and what I've checked I believe there is only one issue left, specifying "North Korea" in the caption. All other concerns have been addressed one way or another.  MPJ-US  20:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I gave it one last read through with the changes made, I am satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. pass, great work @Finnusertop: .  MPJ-US  01:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, MPJ-DK, and congratulations on great work on your part as well. This nomination was not only given recognition but was also made several improvements to, thanks to your comments. I am confident that your review was well-conducted and accurate and that, consequentially, the outcome was the right one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on On the Art of the Cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6FePMpJPD?url=http://www.korea-dpr.com/lib/205.pdf to http://www.korea-dpr.com/lib/205.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)