Talk:Three Beauties of the Present Day/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'll review this shortly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: A couple of issues jump out at me, the italicized Japanese words are not given English translations until "Description and analysis" when they should be referenced upon first usage. I find and issue with the repeated usage of the honorific names instead of the actual name, this might be an WP:HONORIFIC matter, but its professionalism at its most basic. All the "O-Hisa" and "O-Kita" usages fall under this.

Some terms are imprecise uses, but I doubt much can be done for "large number of woodblocks", but "traditional traditional Japanese era divisions" (Text only, covered via markup) is fixable. Some terms like "pleasure quarters" are fun euphemisms, but at least linking to Hanamachi should be done then. Also imprecise is the line - "a wealthy merchant offered 1500 ryō for her, but her parents refused and she continued to work at the teahouse." - it does not make it clear for her marriage or purchase, or else. Another question is why footnote "e" is not in the main text, it reads better in the main body. Now, pardon me if I am more familiar with his shunga works (related to my failed attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage a related evolution - I swear), but I thought this work was part of an ongoing series of sorts. Feel free to correct the ill-informed thoughts of mine, but don't forget to add a link to the article from the Utamaro page gallery.

This article is largely ready for a GA pass, but it does need a few fixes to meet the criteria. And while I spot checked some of the details, I do not have access to much of the material - I have little reason to doubt its authenticity. Though I am positive, at least one of these ladies, I believe Naniwaya Kita had a print with a poem attached to it, and I think Takashima Hisa had been identified in another work as well. That is likely relevant given that it adds to the background. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• the italicized Japanese words are not given English translations until "Description and analysis": no, but they're given glosses (e.g. "nishiki-e colour woodblock print", or "bijin-ga genre of pictures of female beauties"), a style I've chose for readability, leaving a technical style in a technical section. Parentheses drag down the readability of the prose, I think, and thus they should be avoided when reasonable.

Those glosses still need to be marked as such for readability because they are redundant. That's the problem. Now nishiki-e may be so-so in the lead, but "Bijin-ga" in the lead is questionable. In the Background section "nishiki-e" should be noted and there is no "gloss". Ukiyo-e is not explained early on, but this one is sufficiently obscure as well to most readers that its meaning should be explained. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole first paragraph of the opening "Background" section is an oveview of ukiyo-e---what do you think is missing? "Bijin-ga" is glossed as "genre of pictures of female beauties" and "Nishiki-e" is glossed as "full-colour prints". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• "O-Hisa" and "O-Kita": my sources refer to them either by full name or with the "O-" prefix, but never by only their family names or unprefixed given names. If there's a guideline somewhere that says to remove the prefix, I will, but otherwise I think I should be following the sources.

WP:HONORIFIC is a guideline and the preceding "O" is by definition a way of concerning honor in current usage. Historically, female servants were addressed by the "O" instead of the modern "-chan", but this is still polite formal speech for addressing from pre-war Japan. The problem I have with it is simple: Its not the real name and its an (unnecessary) honorific. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed it except where noting that's how it's sometimes given. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• but "traditional traditional Japanese era divisions" (Text only, covered via markup) is fixable: sorry, fixable in what way? I don't understand what's broken.

Duplication of "traditional" - It actually reads "traditional traditional". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• terms like "pleasure quarters" are fun euphemisms, but at least linking to Hanamachi should be done: I've linked to Yūkaku in case case it splits off into its own article, since it's yūkaku specifically the sources talk about. "Pleasure quarter" is hardly a euphemism---perhaps you intend to imply it's a euphemism for "brothel" or something, but the entertainments of the yūkaku were far more extensive than just whoring. At any rate, when there's a widely-accepted English term in use, I prefer to use it rather than the Japanese term---per MOS:JARGON: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do."

Fair enough, it didn't have its own article, but that will do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• it does not make it clear for her marriage or purchase, or else: neither does the source, unfortunately.

Ah! Could you indicate that ambiguity comes from the source in a footnote please? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Another question is why footnote "e" is not in the main text, it reads better in the main body.: I thought it read kind of trivia-y, but thought I should still include it. I've moved it to the body now.

Trivia is debatable, but and most "trivia" is useful - multiple depictions further elevates the significance of the subjects and adds to the backstory. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought this work was part of an ongoing series of sorts: Utamaro had a number of series from the same time that included the same models, but this one wasn't one of them; the titles were prefaced with a series name, such as with the Types of Women's Physiognomies and Famous Beauties of Edo.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• add a link to the article from the Utamaro page gallery. : Done.

Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I believe Naniwaya Kita had a print with a poem attached to it, and I think Takashima Hisa had been identified in another work as well: they've both appeared in quite a few prints (as has Toyohina), and they didn't need to be "identified"---Utamaro names them. I could have sworn I'd mentioned it in the article---perhaps I accidentally cut it. I've thrown in a line about it in the "Publication and legacy" section now.

Thanks and sorry, but I know some are not explicit- as noted in this own article, I didn't want to overstep my bounds on assumption of something that I couldn't remember and wasn't sure if I read correctly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I do not have access to much of the material: what's so frustrating about working with Japanese sources is how few of them are available online, which means going through all the books in the relevant section of the library and hoping you don't overlook what you're looking for. I'm looking forward to the day Japan joins the full-text-search wonderland that is the 21st century.

Agreed on that! Though there archival practices are good for physical texts, there is a clear lack of respect for digital archives. They may exist, but it is quite the task to get newspaper articles from even a few years ago - I've lost a few key sources because of that, but got lucky that it was snapshoted and taken in full by others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost done and you are welcome. Just those discussion points remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so I will pass this. One final note though, please add the ISBN for Kondō, Fumito's 歌麿抵抗の美人画. Its not part of the GA criteria, but I find it most helpful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the isbn. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)