| Revision as of 03:59, 25 May 2015 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,389 edits →GA Review← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:30, 25 May 2015 edit undoCurtisNaito (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,585 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| :::Of course, non-historians are free to write history, and they can sometimes do it well enough that their views are widely accepted by professional historians, but is that what happened here? ''Why'' are popular (mostly, it seems, right-leaning) Japanese literary magazines liked ''Bungei Shunjuu'' and ''Chuuou Kouron'' cited so much in this article? Are there no other sources available? Or do the better sources cite ''Chuuou Kouron'' and ''Bungei Shunjuu'' anyway? I'm not a specialist in this area so I can't say for sure. But I worry that a non-Japanese speaking GA reviewer will come along ({{ping|Sturmvogel 66}} your user page doesn't say -- do you read Japanese?), check how many of the English-language sources went through scholarly publishers and university presses, and assume the same is true of the Japanese ones. | :::Of course, non-historians are free to write history, and they can sometimes do it well enough that their views are widely accepted by professional historians, but is that what happened here? ''Why'' are popular (mostly, it seems, right-leaning) Japanese literary magazines liked ''Bungei Shunjuu'' and ''Chuuou Kouron'' cited so much in this article? Are there no other sources available? Or do the better sources cite ''Chuuou Kouron'' and ''Bungei Shunjuu'' anyway? I'm not a specialist in this area so I can't say for sure. But I worry that a non-Japanese speaking GA reviewer will come along ({{ping|Sturmvogel 66}} your user page doesn't say -- do you read Japanese?), check how many of the English-language sources went through scholarly publishers and university presses, and assume the same is true of the Japanese ones. | ||
| :::] (<small>]]</small>) 03:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | :::] (<small>]]</small>) 03:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I'm using the same citation style recommended by Mary Lynn Rampolla's Pocket Guide to Writing in History. It recommends using "et al" when there are more than two authors. I haven't read any bad reviews of either Hayasaka's or Hayase's biographies of Iwane Matsui, so there is no particular reason to believe that they are unreliable, but in any case those two books are basically all that is available. Only two full-length biographies of Iwane Matsui have ever been written, and those are the two. Matsuura's book was a good source of information as well, but it wasn't a full-length biography. Firstly, Matsuura's book only covers the period from 1878 to 1937, and secondly, it only deals with Matsui's advocacy of pan-Asianism without touching on any other aspect of his life. I had initially decided to not use macrons on Kojinsha or Chuokoron-Shinsha because the macrons are omitted, not only on both their corporate websites, but in the case of ] also on its Misplaced Pages article. Still, it's not a big deal whether the macron is there or not, so I'll add the extra macrons at your request.] (]) 05:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:30, 25 May 2015
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The spelling of Japanese authors' and publishers' names, including macrons, should conform to WP:MOS-JA, unless there is some specific reason why they do not already. 182.249.216.8 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? Which names in particular need to changed?CurtisNaito (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Sorry, the above was me.) A large number (most?) of the inline citations are of Japanese-language books from publishers whose names contain long os or us. MOSJ says these should be written with macrons, unless there is a specific reason why they are not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Although if you're going to go through and fix the formatting of all the cited texts, I would advise (and this is just personal preference, not backed up by any style guideline) adding a "Bibliography" section, including all the bibliographical details there, and cutting all the inline citations down to "<author's surname> <year>, <page number>." Again, just personal preference, but with such a large number of inline citations the current refs sections looks a bit cramped the way it's formatted at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- That was a start, but "Chuo Koron" -- each instance of which should have three macrons -- is the worse offender, and "Kojinsha" is another. An Kazutoshi "Hando" et al. Also, who are the "al"? I'm not sure if it's standard practice to use "et al." if you don't have separate bibliography where all the authors names are listed -- if it is, then it seems counterintuitive. I won't make the changes myself since your selecting to only correct the one implies the others have some other reasoning.
- A much bigger problem than these formatting snafus, though, is the article's apparent reliance on popular sources written by non-specialists, especially when the majority of English Misplaced Pages editors don't read Japanese and so don't know that these sources were written by non-specialists. Hayasaka, a popular non-fiction writer whose blog tells us to check Japanese Misplaced Pages for biographical details and whose Japanese Misplaced Pages entry says nothing of any postgraduate education and says his BA was in journalism, is cited 45 times. I couldn't find any biographical information on Hayase, but his highly eclectic bibliography, which includes at least as many books on pro-golfing as on World War II, implies he is also a non-specialist writer of popular non-fiction works; the article currently cites him 46 times. That alone is 3/8 of a total of (roughly?) 240 inline citations to apparently popular, non-specialist authors of non-fiction. Matsuura, by comparison, is a professor of modern history whose book was published by a university press, and he is cited only 15 times; the last names him inline, but neither Hayasaka nor Hayase is named inline -- the reverse.
- Of course, non-historians are free to write history, and they can sometimes do it well enough that their views are widely accepted by professional historians, but is that what happened here? Why are popular (mostly, it seems, right-leaning) Japanese literary magazines liked Bungei Shunjuu and Chuuou Kouron cited so much in this article? Are there no other sources available? Or do the better sources cite Chuuou Kouron and Bungei Shunjuu anyway? I'm not a specialist in this area so I can't say for sure. But I worry that a non-Japanese speaking GA reviewer will come along (@Sturmvogel 66: your user page doesn't say -- do you read Japanese?), check how many of the English-language sources went through scholarly publishers and university presses, and assume the same is true of the Japanese ones.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm using the same citation style recommended by Mary Lynn Rampolla's Pocket Guide to Writing in History. It recommends using "et al" when there are more than two authors. I haven't read any bad reviews of either Hayasaka's or Hayase's biographies of Iwane Matsui, so there is no particular reason to believe that they are unreliable, but in any case those two books are basically all that is available. Only two full-length biographies of Iwane Matsui have ever been written, and those are the two. Matsuura's book was a good source of information as well, but it wasn't a full-length biography. Firstly, Matsuura's book only covers the period from 1878 to 1937, and secondly, it only deals with Matsui's advocacy of pan-Asianism without touching on any other aspect of his life. I had initially decided to not use macrons on Kojinsha or Chuokoron-Shinsha because the macrons are omitted, not only on both their corporate websites, but in the case of Chuokoron-Shinsha also on its Misplaced Pages article. Still, it's not a big deal whether the macron is there or not, so I'll add the extra macrons at your request.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)