Hello MartinPoulter, I'll be taking up this review and will present it shortly. I hope you will find my feedback useful and that I will learn something new in the process. Tayi ArajakateTalk 17:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
MartinPoulter, I have completed the review and the article more or less fits the good article criteria. There's a few minor issues primarily with respect to comprehension which once fixed, I'll promote the article. Good work on it in general. Tayi ArajakateTalk 05:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
The word exposition in the second paragraph of "Creation and exhibition" shouldn't be capitalised.
"In fact it was displayed ..." This reads a bit awkward, could be rephrased.
The section on collection should specify that the garniture is part of the collection of Japanese decorative art.
"In January 2019, it was discovered; it had been ..." This reads a bit awkward too, could be rephrased.
The dollar sign being wikilinked is unnecessary.
This is just a suggestion, but if possible the article could talk a bit more about the history of the vases and not just where they were acquired from.
Agreed—the provenance of the vases from the World's Columbian Exposition to Khalili's acquisition, to the extent it is known, should be discussed. Also, the source says that the incense burner was previously owned by "Hirose Atsushi at the Tokyo National Museum". Is this the same thing as being "in the collection of the Tokyo National Museum", or does it mean something else (e.g., it was owned by Atsushi was but on loan to the museum)? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for this prompt review User:Tayi Arajakate and for additional comments Usernameunique. I have made some rephrasings and minor changes as suggested. I'm honestly not sure about my solution to "In fact...". What I want to say is that Brinkley predicted the garniture would not be displayed in the palace, but that prediction was wrong and the garniture was, after all, displayed in the palace in a prominent location. I'm not sure if I've yet found an elegant way to say that and I welcome input. The sources give relatively a lot of text to the collection by Khalili and I agree that it would be good to have more of the article about the creation of the vases, but I think I've milked the sources I have available. I admit being confused by the "Hirose Atsushi at the Tokyo National Museum" phrase now my attention is drawn to it, and I will ask the Khalili Collections to clarify that. Again, it would be good to have a complete story of the vases subsequent to 1893, but I think I've got the most I can out of the available sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
MartinPoulter, I think your current solution ("Despite the prediction ...") works quite well. Regarding Hirose Atsushi, I think the line could just be reworked to include that he was the owner, something along the lines of "[T]he incense burner depicting chickens was owned by Hirose Atsushi and displayed at the Tokyo National Museum before being bought by Khalili in 2000."
I've a question, since you mention available sources, are there any ones behind paywalls or otherwise inaccessible to you which may contain more information? Tayi ArajakateTalk 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
To my knowledge, I am not missing any mentions in books or papers. There may be sources in Japanese that have more — for example the Japan Weekly Mail article quoted by Snodgrass — but then we might be getting into primary research, so I think the article is complete for secondary sources that exist. For the Hirose Atsushi connection, I've adopted your phrasing which captures what the multiple sources that mention this person say. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've checked the article and it seems all the issues are resolved then. Congrats on your successful good article nomination! Tayi ArajakateTalk 18:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Pass