Talk:Sakakibara Kenkichi

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sakakibara Kenkichi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. "His family, who lived in the village of Otsuwa near modern-day Tokyo, were comparatively poor" compared to what?

   I've taken the claim of poverty out of this sentence and slightly rephrased the following sentence instead. The "comparatively" refers to the fact that they were related to a Fudai daimyo family, and thus ought to have been reasonably well-off, but that's not emphatically stated in the source and so veers towards OR - it's better removed.

2. "He thus became the fourteenth headmaster of the school" How did he become headmaster of the school? Just by getting a menkyo kaiden? This needs to be explained more clearly.

   Doesn't seem to be in any of the available sources, sadly. It's clear that he became headmaster after Otani, but no-one seems to have written about how that happened; presumably Otani handed over the headmastership and retired at some point prior to 1864. I've altered the wording slightly so that there's no implied connection between the menkyo and the headmastery.

3. "per annum" for clarity, this should probably be "per year"

   I prefer "per annum", but I'm not going to quibble; "per year" it is.

4. "He did, in fact, rescue Prince Kitashirakawa Yoshihisa (who was at the time the abbot of Kan'ei-ji) from the Shōgitai, physically carring him away from the combat." This doesn't really make sense in context. Is this the reason he didn't participate in the fighting? Was it ever disputed that he didn't rescue the prince? Secondly, it probably needs a citation as it stands since it presents the proposition as contrary to expectation.

   Yeah, that was a bit unclear. The reason its interesting is that Yoshihisa was part of the Imperial (anti-shogunate) faction, with which Sakakibara was closely connected (as a personal retainer of the late shogun and a memeber of a family long associated with the Tokugawas). I've changed it a bit to make this clearer.

5. "Sakakibara was later to revise his view and became critical of the practice" This sentence doesn't make much sense and should be revised.

   I'm not sure why you don't think it makes sense, but fair enough; I've revised it.

6. "In 1887 Sakakibara demonstrated a technique called kabuto wari..." What's the purpose of this paragraph?

   It's a famously difficult demonstration cut, and he performed it in front of the Emperor - it seems like a fairly notable event in his life. I've taken out the detail on the depth of the cut, though; that's pretty irrelevant. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'm still not entirely sold on the idea that this isn't trivia. While interesting and I'm sure difficult, an entire paragraph on a single cut seems undue and out of place in a narrative about his life and his contributions to the development of Kendo.Wugapodes (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

   It would appear that he executed this feat more than once; I've just noticed that Turnbull mentions him performing it as a public spectacle in 1889. Would it ameliorate your opposition to this paragraph if I added that in? Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

   What I've now done is to add a sentence about how this techniques was part of his public performance repertoire (per Turnbull) and moved the paragraph up so that it follows on on from the section on gekiken kogyo. I'm happier with this now, since it gives the section a bit more continuity, and (in my humble opinion) makes the paragraph about helmet cutting a lot less jarring. I owe you thanks for getting me to take another look at it; your persistence in criticising that paragraph is appreciated! Yunshui ^雲_水 10:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

   I like this much better! I'm glad you also think it's an improvement. Wugapodes (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• "before unanimously sheathing their swords" unanimously' here seems awkward. Consider rewording.

I disagree that it seems awkward; it implies a collegiate decision taken by all involved parties simultaneously, which describes what happened very precisely. I'm at a loss as to what would better describe the event, but I've removed the word.

• While not technically a GA problem, the language in the article is, and I mean this in the best way possible, pretentious. "Penury", "auspices", "per annum", an important part of writing is accessibility and unless there's a very compelling reason to use these words, more common synonyms should be used so that readers don't have to pull out a dictionary every few sentences.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here; this isn't the Simple English wiki and none of the above terms are remotely obscure. English has a wide range of synonyms and near-synonyms which allows it to be very accurate and nuanced, and I believe in using that feature of the language to its fullest. The deletion of "unanimously", above, is a case in point; the word has a depth of meaning, based on its etymology and use which conveys the mental attitudes of the duellists in a way that "together" or "at the same time" fails to. Still, each to their own; some like Hemingway, some like Joyce... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, this isn't something I can or will fail the review for, but rather something that I'm almost certain will come up later in peer review or FA review or just when other editors find the page. There is a vast gulf of writing styles between Simple English and the vocabulary level of this page. For example, between "penury" and "poor" there is "poverty" or "destitute" both of which are equally encyclopedic and more commonly used. Wikipedia isn't a great work of literature, it's a reference material first and foremost. We don't know "the mental attitudes of the duellists" as you said or of pretty much anyone, and we shouldn't be trying to reflect them; we should be saying what happened. If this is the vocabulary you would use when describing the subject to another person and is your variety of English, then that's fine, but if you're selecting these tokens of vocabulary to present an air of erudition to your prose, then you should rethink it. Wugapodes (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you and I ever get the chance to chew the fat over a beer in real life, you find that's pretty much how I talk. I don't try to embellish my language when writing, but neither do I dumb it down. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would also be careful of neutrality as, at times, the article felt more promotional of a mythos than biographical information. For example, the paragraph on helmet splitting lacked context as it read far more like the kind of posthumous legends told of people than an important aspect of the subject. If there was information on how he was the first to do this, or he gained something for it, etc, it would be better, but as it stands, it's only slightly better than apocrypha.

I've added a little bit to the kabuto wari paragraph to make it clear that he failed on previous attempts, in an attempt t neutralise it a bit.

@Wugapodes: Thank you very much for the review; I've addressed the points above if you'd like to take another pass. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Results

On hold 7 days pending revisions. Wugapodes (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Listed I think the article now meets the GA criteria. If you plan on going for A-class or FA assessment, I would recommend a little more expansion because, while broad, I'm not sure it's comprehensive. And, as always, I recommend a peer review to have a focused emphasis on tightening the prose. Good work so far, keep it up! Wugapodes (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)