Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three Beauties of the Present Day/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Three Beauties of the Present Day

edit
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known colour print by ukiyo-e master Utamaro, dating to c. 1792–93 and featuring three real-life beauties who frequently appeared in his works and the works of others. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Margin1522

edit

This is my first post on this board, so I will limit it to comments. I think this is a really good article. I like the lead, the images, the analysis, and the conclusion. Some small things that I think might be done to improve it.

  • It seems a bit short on the background. I think a bit more material could be added on bijin-ga as a major genre in ukiyo-e.
  • There are a lot Japanese terms and names, which some readers might have trouble with. For example, we link to sharebon but perhaps we could describe in a few words what kind of books those were.
  • In the sentence "Kyōden was manacled for fifty days, and Tsutaya was penalized half his property.", maybe we could say "the artist" instead of "Kyōden", and "the publisher" instead of "Tsutaya". When I came to "Kyōden", I had to go back and see, who was he again?
  • Is "Tomohisa's" correct? Should that be "Toyohina's"?
  • *Burp* One of those things spellcheck will never catch. Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tomimoto-bushi article we link to is quite weak. I'll try to see if I can expand it. It was a genre of jōruri, which is a storytelling song. This particular genre was especially refined and popular with rich townspeople and samurai, and she played the accompaniment. If we could add some of that information, I think it might fill out our picture of her, which is shorter than the other two models. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also wondering if there isn't a better term for ōkubi-e than "big-headed pictures". I know it's often translated this way, but it's not that the subjects had big heads, but that the image was a close-up of the head, or upper body actually. Other translations I've seen are are "torso portrait" or "bust portrait", but these don't seem quite right either. Is there some term (Italian?) in art criticism for "upper body portrait"? If not maybe we could just explain again what it was. Also, there were ōkubi-e of kabuki actors before Utamaro. His innovation was to do it for bijin, so maybe that could be clarified. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm partial to "big bust portrait", but everyone keeps shouting me down. If you check out the "Background" section you'll see that ōkubi-e is attributed to Shunshō, and the association is made with yakusha-e. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that's true, the background section is fine. Also, I finished expanding the Tomimoto-bushi article. I seem to remember seeing a print of Toyohina standing on a veranda and looking like she was teaching the shamisen a child, which would have been nice to add. But I can't remember now where I saw it, or even if it was her. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more nit. At Amazon the ISBN for the Yoshida dictionary goes to the 3rd edition. And I'm wondering if 定本 actually means "Revised". It could, but publishers like to put that on dictionaries regardless, just to make it look authoritative. There is a used copy of the 1974 edition on the Amazon page and the cover has 定本 already. Is it not enough to just say 3rd edition? – Margin1522 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's weird. Worldcat lists three editions with that ISBN—one from 1974, another from 1994, and another undated. A Worldcat search for the title indicates the first edition was in 1944. The thing is, I got the ISBN information right from the book itself—I'm looking at it now, and it clearly says: "Printed in Japan © 1972 Teruji Yoshida 1571—0006—1033 ISBN 4-87364-005-9 C1571 P25000E". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is strange, but if says so in the book it must be correct. The National Book Network says "If you are revising a book and there is a substantial change of the contents, the book should be assigned a new ISBN. A rule of thumb is that 15-20% of the text or content should change to treat the book as a new edition." So perhaps all of those editions are substantially the same. Or not, I don't know. But the cite gives the year, so there's no doubt as to which edition was consulted. I guess it's OK then, we can't do anything about the ISBN. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bamse

edit

Very beautiful article and artwork. Unfortunately I don't have time for a full review. Just a couple of comments...

Just one more thing...

Comments from Johnbod

edit

Generally there, but:

  • "Her clothes and hairstyle are in the showier style of a geisha compared to the plainer, teahouse-girl garments of the other two models..." I must say they all look identical to me. If there is a difference it needs explaining.

Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page where you can see the difference. The image is at the top (1781～1789) is a bit earlier and the hairstyle isn't quite as elaborate. The 2nd and 3rd from the top (1789～1801) are exactly this period. The 2nd is a geisha, and her kinono has more layers. The 3rd is a tea house girl, and she has a simpler kimono. The hairstyles of all 3 models are really elaborate -- it says Utamaro wasn't exaggerating, this was real. But the geisha's is a bit taller and has more ornaments. The ornaments make the difference. Perhaps we could say "ornamental hairstyle" and "elegant kimono" about Toyohina. But it's true, I can't see calling any of those hairstyles simple. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But all these 3 seem to have exactly the same styles and ornaments. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One lacks the comb, but I don't know if that's significant. The kimono are different, but you're right, the hairstyles are very similar. Instead of talking about the differences, maybe we should try to find out the name of this hairstyle and why teahouse girls were wearing it in the first place. I think that's pretty remarkable. It might be a characteristic of this period. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the top one, I thought that was just the angle of vision - there's a little bit coming out of the back at right, similar to the other two. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are other details that distinguish Toyohina's hairstyle if you're willing to cross your eyes and hold it up to the light, but anyways I may have misinterpreted the source: it compares their clothes, and along the way says "派手な芸者髷を結わせ" to describe Toyohina's hair, but doesn't explicitly compare her hair to that of the other two—just the clothes: "家つきの娘らしいやや地味な着物を着せて、それぞれの身分の違いを描くことに務めている". I've tweaked it, dropping reference to the hair. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks - the top one has a plain kimono and the other two patterns, but I won't argue the toss with sources on historical Japanese women's fashion (do we have articles on any of this stuff - I doubt it). Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the hairstyle, I have expanded the article on Shimada (hairstyle) so that now it explains the style that all 3 models are wearing and slightly reworded Toyohina's description to point to it. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "confections"? Not really an English word for food, is it? In the UK we have "confectionary" aka "sweets" = "candy" in the US. If that is the title they use, then you are stuck with it, but in the text something understandable should be used.
    • I see "confection" with the same meaning in a couple of dictionaries (and Wiktionary), but now that I see "sweet" is part of the definition, it's not really the best translation of 菓子, which includes salty snackfoods. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll sort this out tomorrow. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For now, I've substituted in "snacks", though somehow it doesn't seem right ... dictionaries seem to favour "sweets", "confectioneries", "candies", or even "cakes" (!), which I think any Japanese speakers here will agree is not right (ja:菓子 describes kashi as 甘味や塩味など "sweet, salty, etc.") Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment in Bamse's section. This print has two states & that should probably be used & linked. You might also link this there, as it mentions no Japanese prints at present. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About why the later state lacks the names, another explanation I have seen is that the bakufu cracked down on these frivolous prints and forbade printing the names of models. I wonder if any of the sources mention that. Censorship seems like a more plausible explanation than that they moved away. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible, although none of my sources suggest so—the "moved away" one is the only one I've seen, and only in the one source, and even then only put forth as a conjecture. It would be difficult to determine anyways, given that the different states are undated (even the original is only estimated at 1792–93). Of course, if a source turns up that says anything like that, it'll have to be added. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference and mentioned it on the Talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left a response there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately sourced and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the page is there now, after the discussions, which I followed, above. More please. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley Miles

edit
In the h/c OED the verb is first cited in this sense (#2) from 1614, and the participle from De Quincy in 1813 I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typo—it should be "individuated". Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- Hi Curly, pls seek a source review, and check your duplinks. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Three_Beauties_of_the_Present_Day/archive1&oldid=791874867"