Talk:The Cuckoo (novel)/GA1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by LEvalyn in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rublov (talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article shortly.
Good Article review progress box
|
Infobox and lead edit
- Clarify what Nami-ko is, e.g. an alternative English name? Should also probably be bolded and Nami-ko should be created as a redirect to this article.
The story relates tragedies...
— this sentence is a bit of a run-on. I'd recommend splitting the last part into its own sentence.- Link Japanese feudal values to Feudal Japan.
- Recommend
broadly popular bestseller
→bestseller
. A bestseller is by definition popular.- Hm, I think I disagree -- a bestseller is not by definition broadly popular, since a book can sell a lot of copies while still only appealing to a particular niche. This sentence is trying to summarize the fact that the book was popular with people of varied backgrounds, unlike the other major bestseller Konjiki yasha which only appealed to a more 'elite' crowd. Is there another rephrasing that would capture that nuance? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not a big issue, but the last sentence about "domestic fiction" doesn't appear anywhere in the body of the article.
- I decided this made more sense in the synopsis section, so the lead could be more
- Not sure what the convention is for old books, but the 1904 English translation at least has an OCLC number and page count which could be included in the infobox.
- I thought about this, and in the end, I don't like privileging the English translation in that way. This is an article that is fundamentally about the Japanese novel, and the 1904 translation just happens to be one of many foreign-language translations of it. Including its page count would, I think, be actively confusing-- it certainly has a different number of pages than the Japanese novel. And the OCLC number doesn't seem very helpful. So, on reflection, I prefer not to add this information. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Synopsis edit
- Delete first sentence; not part of the synopsis.
- First three sentences are choppier; could they be combined, e.g.
Namiko, the daughter of a general, and Takeo, a naval officer and son of a deceased baron, are happily married
? Naval
should be lower-case.Then three sources of unhappiness ruin it all
— tone of this sentence is not quite encyclopedic.The first is Taneo, Takeo's cousin and Namiko's rejected suitor
— possessiveNamiko's
feels awkward here, suggest something likea former suitor of Namiko
.Then there
— this transition is too colloquial.whose illness prevents
→as her illness prevents
absolutism
— not quite the right word as it usually refers to absolute monarchy.he refuses to take a course of action
— this is confusing because it has not yet been stated what course of action he took.Takeo's choice is dramatically enhanced
—dramatically
is a puff word, and I'm not sure what it means for someone's choice to be "enhanced".She in effect dissolves her son's marriage by sending his wife back into her family
→ I think it's better to flip the order here, e.g.She sends his wife back to her family, in effect dissolving her son's marriage
.- Link Bible and remove "Christian".
- I have wikilinked Christian Bible since it's not quite identical to Bible and the full phrase is what the sources use. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the last sentence would fit better in the "Translations and adaptations" section.
Publication and reception edit
not yet a particularly successful
→was not yet a particularly successful
broadly beloved
— bit of puffery, suggest merelypopular
instead.effective, tear-inducing melodrama
— similar, suggest justmelodrama
, also to avoid paraphrasing the source too closely.- I removed effective but I think the tear-inducing is relevant, because the sources talk A LOT about how much people cry over this book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
tuberculosis itself
—itself
is unnecessary.
Inspiration edit
Major themes edit
- First quote (from Ito) is not a complete sentence so the quotation mark should go before the punctuation per MOS:QUOTE, and similarly for a couple of other quotes in this section.
- Madama Butterfly should be italicized.
views of tuberculosis, characterizing it as
→ simplyviews of tuberculosis as
Takeo himself
— omititself
.although it may have had the opposite effect in practice
— could you briefly expand on this?
Translations and adaptations edit
- Link Mizoguchi Hakuyō?
- Hm, it would be a redlink, and I don't feel confident that they are actually notable enough for an article. I don't think their Hototogisu poems would pass NBOOK, for example, because I only ever saw them discussed in passing mentions to show how influential the novel was. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
fifteen different languages
→fifteen languages
seem likely to have been
→seem to have been
- I don't think the sources support this edit. What Lavelle says is
We did not have access to the Finnish and Italian translations; moreover, we do not possess a good knowledge of German, Spanish or Portuguese, even less Swedish. We cannot therefore state anything for certain, but some hints seem to show that the French translation is the only one not based on the English version.
(106-7) For now, I have made no change. I think it could also say "might have been" or some other phrasing offering a cautious prediction. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)- If anything I think my edit is more in line with the sources? In particular I'm not sure that the quote you provided supports the use of the word
likely
. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)- To me, "seem to have been" indicates a LOT more certainty than "seem likely to have been." Lavelle goes on to make a reasonably persuasive case that they were based on the 1904 English (there's another page and a half on the topic), which is why I think this information is probably-true enough to be worth mentioning, but I don't want to oversell it. I've toned down the certainty to "may have been." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- If anything I think my edit is more in line with the sources? In particular I'm not sure that the quote you provided supports the use of the word
- I don't think the sources support this edit. What Lavelle says is
- Wonder whether the manga is notable enough to mention?
their readers would not understand the reference to reincarnation
→ this is confusing because you haven't stated Namiko's dying words yet, would recommend doing that first.- English translation should come first, with Japanese transliteration in parentheses.
- The reference for Andō Yoshirō in this section should use a citation template for consistency with the rest of the article.
- I do not believe this is a GA criteria, but I have made this change. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Overall edit
- Earwig's copyvio tool shows "Violation Possible" at 45.7% but almost all the highlighted passages are single-sentence quotes so it's not a concern for me.
- Both images are relevant and in the public domain.
- It's not clear to me how reliable the paper from Transcommunication is. Based on this it seems that Transcommunication is something a bit less than a full peer-reviewed scholarly journal. I don't by any means think you need to remove it entirely, but the article currently leans rather heavily on it for important claims like the novel was "one of the most phenomenal commercial successes Japan had ever known". If some of these claims could instead be sourced to the Stanford book or the Harvard paper that would be a definite improvement.
- Hm, I see why you are hesitant. But I think this particular article was peer-reviewed normally and ought to be considered a reliable source. The description there says
In addition to refereed articles, we will start publishing a wide variety of writings in the future issues. There will be visual essays, critical reviews, and opinion pieces.
-- the Lavelle article is clearly not a visual essay, critical review, or opinion piece, which leaves it as a refereed article. The bestseller status etc is mentioned by the other sources too so I could dig through for other cites if you think it's necessary, but I liked how Lavelle put things so I'd prefer to keep it as is. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hm, I see why you are hesitant. But I think this particular article was peer-reviewed normally and ought to be considered a reliable source. The description there says
Nice work. The article is close to meeting GA standards, so I'm putting the review on hold to give you the chance to address my comments. Ruбlov (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed comments! I will start working on these and will ping you when I think the article is ready for you to take another look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Rublov, thanks again for all your comments, I think I have addressed them all now! There were a few places where I took no action or wanted some clarification, so please take a look and let me know if there are further changes needed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @LEvalyn: A few follow-up comments. Once these are resolved, I'll be happy to pass this. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Rublov, thanks again for all your comments, I think I have addressed them all now! There were a few places where I took no action or wanted some clarification, so please take a look and let me know if there are further changes needed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)