Talk:The Cuckoo (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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 Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lead

• 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.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• The story relates tragedies... — this sentence is a bit of a run-on. I'd recommend splitting the last part into its own sentence.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Better, but now the lead is a little choppy. I think the plot summary could be lengthened slightly, e.g. It is a tragic melodrama about the family conflict that ensues when a young wife contracts tuberculosis. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Good point, I've made some more improvements in the lead. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Link Japanese feudal values to Feudal Japan.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
    • If that's what you're trying to express I think you need to be more explicit: bestseller that was popular across Japanese society. However I do wonder whether this is really important enough to include in the lead. Up to your discretion. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, taken it out of the lead for now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 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

• Delete first sentence; not part of the synopsis.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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?
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Naval should be lower-case.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Then three sources of unhappiness ruin it all — tone of this sentence is not quite encyclopedic.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• The first is Taneo, Takeo's cousin and Namiko's rejected suitor — possessive Namiko's feels awkward here, suggest something like a former suitor of Namiko.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Then there — this transition is too colloquial.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• whose illness prevents → as her illness prevents
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• absolutism — not quite the right word as it usually refers to absolute monarchy.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• he refuses to take a course of action — this is confusing because it has not yet been stated what course of action he took.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • In fixing this you introduced a typo: divorse should be divorce. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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".
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Publication and reception

• not yet a particularly successful → was not yet a particularly successful
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• broadly beloved — bit of puffery, suggest merely popular instead.
  • Again, I am trying to capture the nuance that it was not just popular within a particular readership (as with crime novels or romance novels), but read by very different social groups... is there a better way to put this? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I'd say the same thing as for the lead: need to be more explicit if you want to communicate this nuance. I would still recommend against using beloved unless you have multiple sources to support that. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• effective, tear-inducing melodrama — similar, suggest just melodrama, 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)
    • I don't love tear-inducing as an adjective though; maybe something like the novel was broadly beloved for its flowery language and melodrama; many readers reported crying over the book? Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I made some more edits in this section to address this & the popularity aspect. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• tuberculosis itself — itself is unnecessary.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Inspiration

• Last sentence needs a source.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Major themes

• 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.
  • This part of the MOS does not form part of the Good Article criteria. However, I have implemented these changes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I did not realize that. Anyway, I think you might as well fix trivial deviations from the MOS. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Madama Butterfly should be italicized.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• views of tuberculosis, characterizing it as → simply views of tuberculosis as
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Takeo himself — omit itself.
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• although it may have had the opposite effect in practice — could you briefly expand on this?
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • hose → those Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Translations and adaptations

• 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
  • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• Wonder whether the manga is notable enough to mention?
  • It doesn't pass NBOOK for its own article, but the link source is (AFAIK) a RS review and I think it's interesting. It's also one of the easier ways to read the story in English, which is really what makes it seem worth mentioning. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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.
  • I had a friend who reads Japanese help me locate the original, and I think this section is much clearer and informative now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • French translation in parentheses should be in quotes. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• English translation should come first, with Japanese transliteration in parentheses.
  • I think this is no longer relevant. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
    • I think it is covered by Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article. in MOS:FNNR which is part of GA criteria 2a. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see, I understood that to refer only to the use of, e.g., <ref> tags versus sfn style. Regardless, all sorted now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Overall

• 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)
    • Okay, that's fine. Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Rublov: Ok, I think they are sorted! Thanks for catching those typos. I think the lead changed the most but I think it gives a more thorough overview now without getting too in the weeds. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Looks good. Passing. Ruбlov (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your work in this review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)