Talk:Botan Dōrō

Comment

Doro is not どろう but どうろう (something like Dourou) thus I fixed it. However, there're four options for the kanji of とうろう (you know, どうろう is rendaku of とうろう) and I don't know which is the best: 灯籠, 灯篭, 燈籠, and 燈篭. I chose 燈籠灯籠 with no specific reason (I just googled a bit but I failed to put...). Hazukashinagara, I know nothing about this kaidan, so please change to another one or just leave it as hiragana if it's better. (note: in ja:怪談 they use three of them. the best selection remains uncertain...) --marsian 10:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, 燈籠 is the correct kanji. I had meant to fix that, but forgot...MightyAtom 10:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I made a mistake... thanks for your fix (I meant to choose 燈籠, but somehow put 灯籠... even though I'm using reputable ATOK! perhaps I need to upgrade it :) --marsian 11:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article status

This article is fantastic! I really can't say enough about how nicely done the article is. However, there is one flaw that currently prevents this article's approval as a good article, and that is the lack of citations, inline or otherwise. Though the references are provided, they are not cited in the article, and therefore this article would fail based on this criterion. If this is work that the editors believe possible within the seven day window of the hold period available, and the current twenty-four hour hold I'm placing on the nomination, please indicate the intention to add citations here. Because of the amount of editing that will be required to comply with this seven day window, if the editors would kindly announce their intentions within in the next twenty-four hours, I will be happy to extend the hold for the full seven days. If not, I encourage you to improve this article and renominate at your own pace. Once the article has been passed or failed, I will discuss my thoughts on the other aspects of the article more thoroughly, but before that, this critical area needs to be addressed. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The only problem is I don't really know how to do any citations. Is there a page that can teach me about this? MightyAtom 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information. In-line citations are best, but the other formats listed are sufficient. Of there are any questions I may answer about citations, I'd be happy to discuss through my user page! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seeing no changes made by this late stage of the hold, I have decided to fail this article. I do, however, encourage the editors to cite their passages and resubmit this article for further criticism in the pursuit of good article status. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On August 16th, you gave me a 7 day window to update the article. By the normal established way of counting time, that gives me until the 23rd to make the changes. Which would be tomorrow. Sooo....I just spent several hours updating the article with the requested changes, came to log on only to find that you had prematurely failed me. Why did you bother to establish the timeline of seven days if you had no intention of keeping it? MightyAtom 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• These issues have been addressed on your user talk page. Chuchunezumi 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

9/19 hold

I think this article can make it with a few minor issues:

• No need, IMO, to indent all the footnotes.

• In 1884, Botan Doro was adapted by famous storyteller Encho Sanyutei into a rakugo, which increased the popularity of the tale. This isn't sourced, amidst a number of other things in that passage that are.

• Rename "Trivia" "Miscellanea" as has been done elsewhere. Truly trivial information would not be in an encyclopedia article.

As this article is about Japanese horror, I will yield to temptation and close thusly: Seven days ... you have seven days. Daniel Case 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No need for seven days! Done and done! MightyAtom 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Botan doro a parabole with a warning against necrophilia?

... I think not. So in my opinion, the opening: it involves sex with the dead and the consequences of loving a ghost is a bit of a pompous stretch. True, Otsuyu is dead, but Ogiwara/Saburo is not aware of this, i.e. he is not willingly/knowingly having sex with a dead body. It involves sex with the dead hints at necrophilia too strongly, and I don't think Ogiwara/Saburo can be accused of being a necrophiliac. I would suggest at least the insertion of unintended into the phrase, or else simple omition of it altogether.

Another thing: do we really need the spoiler warnings? I mean, this is a folklore story. The apreciation of folklore doesn't really merit spoiler warnings. (I was going to give Hamlet as an example of a similar article without a spoiler warning, but for some inexplicable reason, that article's got a spoiler warning as well. So I'll just be a big bad bully and yell it out here: everybody dies in the end! Ha! I bet I spoiled Hamlet for you now...)

I would remove the spoiler warnings, but since this is a GA, I'll leave that here for discussion. If no one objects, I'll still remove them in about a week or so. TomorrowTime 14:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cautionary tales against seduction by ghosts or spirits is a prominent theme in Japanese ghost stories, appearing quite often. It is very much a part of Botan Doro, and should be left in. Obviously, there is no reference to necrophilia, as the warning is againsts ghosts, not dead bodies. Also, the spoiler warnings were put in as a condition to it becoming a good article. MightyAtom 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. I agree fully with the "consequences of loving a ghost" part (and realise now that I didn't make this clear enough), but the "sex with the dead" part is IMO a bit much - it seems like a The Sun type of sensationalism.

Spoler warnings are a condition for a GA? Why? I'm having a realy hard time understanding why that should be. Does Hansel and Gretel have a spoiler warning? I still think it's redundant (and a bit silly), but I wont argue the point. TomorrowTime 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment (2009)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Botan Dōrō/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 5, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Satisfies the criteria Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • I fixed one EL which was a dead link. Are the links to all teh film version entries at IMdB neccessary. I would suggest that that plays against MoS guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • I assume good faithfor all print sources. There are a number of uncited statements, which I have tagged.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Ref #4 [1] and ref #7 [2] are both personal web pages, not RS.

   c (OR):

   • If the requested citations can be given, otherwise the influences section reads like OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • On hold for seven days for above issues to be fixed. Major contributors and projects being notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, seven days have passed and although edits have been made none of these points have been addressed, so delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)