Talk:Shunga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shunga article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Shunga has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] Article Expansion

I've added a lot to this article - generally I'm quite pleased with what I've been able to do. However, out of fear of conflict, the references section is perhaps a bit excessive, not least because a lot of my citations are the same Helsinki Art Museum book. Would someone mind checking through and removing references next to statements that they do not feel will be questioned by many people?

I also feel that it would be nice if it were rated higher than start class now. Gosh, I hope this article is on someone's watch list.

Please let me know if you think some of the points I've raised in the new article are a bit pedantic. Genre classification may be one of them. Rupa zero 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has passed GA criteria and looks appropriate under the terms. Lakers 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

Screech is not a very good source because he published his book with the intention of stirring up study/debate on shunga and very often uses quite a number of generalizations.


While I think that his generalisations are backed up by so much anecdotal evidence that it's almost tiring to wade through it all, I think I understand your concerns regarding his intention to stir up debate. If there are any statements in the article that you find controversial then let me know - however, I think I've managed to steer clear of his more outlandish claims, such as that shunga was nothing more than a masturbatory aid. I don't agree with Screech on everything he says, and I hope you'll find that I've used other sources extensively enough. Oh, and please remember to sign off with four tildes.

Rupa zero 14:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

I'd like to apologize to the editors who regularly contribute to this article, but it seems that Lakers did not fully perform a full good article review last April 03, 2007. Generally, a good article review begins with a nominator placing a {{GAnominee}} template on the talk page. In a week or two, a volunteer reviewing editor, who has not contributed significantly to the article, compares the article with the the good article criteria. When the reviewer completes the review, he or she generally leaves a series of comments, and possibly some action items. With the completion of action items, if any, and if the article meets the criteria, the reviewer grants the {{GA}} award. A recent review session of the Battle of Antietam looks like this; this review was conducted over the course of a few days by an experienced good article reviewer, Awadewit, who found the article generally compliant; he worked with a regular contributor, Hal Jespersen to clear up a few action items. On granting the award, Awadewit left some remarks on what might need to be done for the article to be compliant with the more stringent Featured article standards.

In contrast, Lakers apparently did not begin with a nominatation for this article, nor have I come across any page or section where he left review notes. From what I gather from the talk page history, he simply placed the GA award with a brief complementary announcement. A long-term participant in the Good Article review process, Homestarmy remarked on a similarly abbreviated review process for Original Stories from Real Life conducted by Lakers. As Homestarmy noted to Lakers on that occasion, in the absence of any written review, it is not clear to other editors how or why an article gained the Good Article marque and may speedily delist this article on no larger grounds than an improper procedure was followed.

To this I would add that the Good Article marque in and of itself is void of meaning: it acquires meaning only when another editor, a reviewer with no ego invested in an article and who, quite independently of those contributing to the article, reviews the effort and publishes (1) a written opinion on how well the article compares to a written standard, (2) offers action items that may be needed to meet those standards, and (3) suggests ways to improve the article so that it can achieve even higher standards. It is this sort of published commentary that endows a Good Article marque with meaning with respect to the article to which it is attached. in the absence of such published commentary, the marque has little meaning and awarding it is largely an empty gesture.

I have given the article a brief read, and see no immediate reason to delist, indeed, it seems to be in the territory of a good article. But as you may have gathered, I regard the written review, and the responses that contributors may have to it, as the real value of a Good Article marque. I will be posting this article at the Review board for the independent opinions of other reviewers; my overall recommendation is to requeue this article as a Good Article Candidate so that an independent editor can give you useful commentarty. I apologize for the haste and lack of content of the previous review and the extra process it has engendered, but I hope you all may agree with me that the Good Article marque is only so much page clutter if it is empty of meaning. Take care — Gosgood 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Gosgood. I'm impressed by how meticulous you are. Looking forward to the independent review. Rupa zero 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zeng

The original reference to "zeng" was a single word paragraph added 18:41, 11 November 2006, then expanded a minute later to '(usually named Zeng)' and apparently unnoticed or unquestioned since. I strongly suspect this is a case of 'potentially embarassing act' > 'potentially embarassing act is a favorite pastime of chosen victim' vandalism that's been missed. If there is some kind of historical reference here that I'm missing, explain it here (and the article)

For now I'm deleting it as sadly 14 month old vandalism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.67.106 (talk • contribs) 02:13, January 10, 2008