Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Matsuo Bashō/1

Matsuo Bashō

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Keep. While the article did not meet the criteria when it was nominated, it was brought up to standard during the review. Geometry guy 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for a reassessment/delisting as it fails section two of the good article criteria, "It is factually accurate and verifiable." More accurately, it fails 2b, "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". With virtually no inline citations I don't see this as a GA. Wizardman 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Every statement in this article is verifiable by checking the References section. Inline citations are not and have never been necessary on Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. While Wikepedia doesn't require in-line citations for articles, it does requires them for GA listing. Please examine Good Article criteria, specifically 2-b. It states that a Good Article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Majoreditor (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Where exactly are those statements in this article? Shii (tock) 05:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The following are quotes that need to be inline cited:

"at one time I coveted an official post with a tenure of land"

"there was a time when I was fascinated with the ways of homosexual love"

"the alternatives battled in my mind and made my life restless." Wizardman 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, cited. Shii (tock) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple of assertions in the article which also need to be supported through in-line citations -- I've tagged them. The lead also needs to be better developed per WP:LEAD. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations provided. As for the lead, WP:SOFIXIT, it couldn't hurt for you to write three or four sentences about this article you have scrutinized. Shii (tock) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Shii, but I help repair lots of articles at GAR. Let's see if someone else wants to work on the lead for this article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my rudeness. I've added a lead. Shii (tock) 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have have stricken my recommendation to delist. Shii has addressed all of the issues I raised. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's good: I was worried I was going to have to find time to improve the lead :-)

I will check over the article very soon, help if I can, and make a recommendation. Geometry guy 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. This article is fairly close, but I don't think it's there yet. There are still a number of citations missing; in Influence and literary criticism, for instance, we're told that it was blasphemous to criticize Bashō's poetry, something that I think definitely needs to be supported by a reliable reference. The prose also needs some work. For example:

• "On his return to Edo in the winter of 1691, Bashō lived in his third Bashō hut ... He continued to make a living from teaching and appearances at haikai parties until late August of 1693, when he shut the gate to his bashō hut".
• Japanese words are not formatted consistently, sometimes being italicised and at other times not.
• Some awkward phrasings, such as "He was even conflicted over whether to become a full-time poet".

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I have followed all of your suggestions except where you were too vague for me to understand. You said there were a "number of citations missing" but you only provided one example; I cannot fix all those missing citations you have in your head, only the ones you tell me about. Also, I do not understand what is so awkward about my phrasing. I beg the Good Article Gods not to delist my article just because I can't understand the criticisms being made. Shii (tock) 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's what an example is, an example. I've been a native speaker of English for more years than I'd care to admit to, but I've never come across the word "conflicted" before. Americans do have a habit of inventing odd words on the other hand. :-) Bashō is obviously an important figure though, and so I'll try to help with this review if you deal with the content issues. Deal? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

      "Conflicted" is the past participle of the intransitive verb "to conflict", which, according to my Oxford dictionary and thesaurus, means "clash, be incompatible", or "struggle or contend" (with). I've seen it used before in this sense of inner conflict. In the quoted example, it is the word "even" which is more problematic (in my view): this suggests an editorial opinion, and is not encyclopedic

      I hope Malleus's deal will be accepted: it is a very generous offer. Geometry guy 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

      FWIW, I have no problem with the word "conflicted." Indeed, I am absolutely not conflicted about it.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

      Bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After looking over improvements since, I'll change my stance on this to neutral for now, since it has gotten better. Wizardman 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Some comments from a quick peruse:
  • What's a haigo? It should be explained or linked.
  • I don't think you need the link to Help:Japanese every time a Japanese word is used, especially if there's also a version in Latin script.
  • Most importantly, many more citations are required. For instance, "Rise to fame" has but a single references; and the following two sections have none.
  • But the sources should be good ones: the Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't cut it.
• In its current state, I'd be forced to say delist. However, there's an active editor or two, so hopefully it can be saved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's a haigo? It should be explained or linked.

It is.

You mean where the articles states "haigo, or haikai pen names"? This isn't clear, probably as a function of the grammar. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay... that's perfectly clear to me, feel free to rephrase it. Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because it's not clear to me, it's hard for me to rephrase. Is "haigo," then, simply the Japanese for pen name? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, a pen named used in haiku. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need the link to Help:Japanese every time a Japanese word is used, especially if there's also a version in Latin script.

This is the result of using the standard Japanese template which was endorsed by the Japanese WikiProject.

I don't understand this; perhaps you could show me the relevant discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Japanese_terms Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, though it's clear there that the usage is optional. I'd use it the first time only. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess. People who have screen readers, for instance, could benefit from the metadata labeling of Unicode text as Japanese. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly, many more citations are required. For instance, "Rise to fame" has but a single reference; and the following two sections have none.

The references are at the bottom of the page.

But the relationship between the text and those references is unclear, because of the lack of citations. From which book (and which part of that book), for instance, is the information in the "Later life" section taken? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire biography is provided by Ueda who is Basho's only English biographer, and that's why this is a Good Article and not a Featured Article. Ueda provides two chronological biographies in his 1982 and 1992 books which you can look up yourself on Google Books. I do not see any other statements in this article which are so controversial that they necessitate a citation. Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation for a direct quotation that didn't have one; and checking on the source, as per your advice, discovered that the article was wrong about some of the information provided in the previous sentence. This is why citations are needed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will go to the library and take a look. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But the sources should be good ones: the Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't cut it.

Someone else added that reference. Should I remove it? I wouldn't like to claim I own this article. Shii (tock) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would remove it; but it should be replaced by a better one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I found a better citation from Ueda. I note with some amusement that this article is being used as a primary reference for a couple of books published after 2005. It's a good thing I rewrote it when I did. Shii (tock) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are lazy researchers out there shouldn't mean that we should copy them! I still think this article could be much better sourced. NB what about doing something with Haruo Shirane's Traces of Dreams, to avoid the reliance on a single author? That's also a much more recent publication, and as such probably more reliable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that book like most books on Basho are mostly a commentary on his poems. It might be nice if we are aiming for a featured article to have a bigger section for that, taking steps of course to ensure cross-cultural NPOV, but it doesn't verify/invalidate any of the biographical information. Shii (tock) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I downloaded some articles about Basho from JSTOR. Email me if you want them... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• At a (not overly in-depth) glance and based on the work done so far here, I'm leaning towards keeping GA status here. Any other thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've looked at this several times now, but have felt unable to comment. In my view, this is a example of a real issue about GA: how can non-experts evaluate content? The issue raised by the nominator was verifiability, but have any reviewers actually gone to the library to check that the sources support the sense of the article (there's a suggestion that Jbm has). Also, how can non-experts evaluate whether the article is sufficiently broad? Unless these questions are addressed, my instinct is to close this as "No consensus", which means keeping GA status by default, but without any endorsement of that status. Geometry guy 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I had a little two-year fling with haiku several years ago, and still love the art form. I'm unsatisfied with the article. I think it's too lite and too litely sourced. Basho deserves much, much better. Basho, it bears repeating, is the man. When you think haiku, you think Basho. That point is definitely brought out, but not developed at all. There are whole realms of criticism, history, etc etc that could be explored... However, my objections may not be enough to prevent it from being GA. I.. would kinda very reluctantly consider holding my nose and saying Retain GA. I dunno. Am on a fence. My heart says fail GA; my head says but GA standards are supposed to be more lax... I think there is fertile soil for FA here... has anyone asked for a translation from the Japanese Wikipedia? I don't actually know, but I bet their article is excellent... Ling.Nut (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Delisting - throwing a list of books at the bottom does not make up for the almost complete lack of inline citations giving specific page numbers. Whole sections are basically unreferenced due to the lack of inline citations. Fails all requirements for verifiability, and Wizardman's quick delisting was fully justified (while the reverting of it was not appropriate). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, please take a good look at the article. Thirteen out of the article's 14 in-line citations give specific page numbers. Majoreditor (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good, but that doesn't address the major issue: whole unreferenced sections (as a side note, 14 refs should not be using a 2 column format). Delisting still fully justified. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced is not the same as no inlines. It is pretty clear that almost all of the article is sourced by the two books of Ueda. Counting inlines is lazy reviewing, and I don't support it. Instead reviewers should point to material (such as quotations or controversial material) which needs inline citation per the GA criteria. Such comments are actionable: other editors can add inlines where necessary. "Not enough inlines" isn't, and is not a GA criterion, neither are page references. Geometry guy 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but no, that does not cut it. You don't get to just say "well, the whole article is sourced from these two books, go find it all in them yourself, because I don't want to tell you what came from where." That is lazy and inaccurate, not saying the article is lacking in inline citations, and therefore it is badly referenced. Just throwing two books at the bottom and leaving it at that is not a valid citing technique. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that one should try to be as helpful as possible to the reader and that this article could be much improved in respect of providing more citations and more page references. But that does not mean that delisting decisions should be based on anything other than the good article criteria. Hackneyed phrases like "that does not cut it", inaccurate statements like "throwing two books at the bottom and leaving it at that", and delists of the form "I am delisting this article as a GA because on the fact that there are inline citations" fail to improve the encyclopedia. I much prefer an article which has 14 inline citations to reliable sources than an article with 200 inline citations to a bunch of unreliable websites. Unfortunately many old GAs have this problem because of an unhealthy historical focus on counting inlines. I wish the article were much better, but I don't see a clear case for delisting it in its present form. At all times I encourage GA reviewers to concentrate on evaluating the sources rather than counting the inlines. Geometry guy 22:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please show exactly how the entire article is properly sourced without the use of inline citations? You can't. There is absolutely no way to show what information came from the two claimed sources, and what came from neither. It is not verifiable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you, as a reviewer, check that every inline citation supports the sentence it cites? Do readers? How can you show that this article isn't properly sourced, when you haven't read the sources? How does it help to add a footnote to every sentence; those footnotes could all be wrong (and sadly, in many articles they often are)? How does it help to add page numbers to books you will never read?: I could add a random bunch of inlines and page references to this article, and you would be satisfied. Does this show the article is properly sourced? Try to be a reader, not just a reviewer.

Ask yourself what kind of reader wants to check the sources for this article. Perhaps someone writing a term paper. Such a person is lucky, because by searching on Wikipedia they have found a couple of decent books. If they are a crap student they will cite the Wikipedia article and get a C. If they are a good student they will get the sources out of the library and read them. Horrors, there are two main sources here, one a biography and the other on the poetry and its interpretations. Go figure which source is more likely to support which parts of the article. You'll find the inlines match this. Any reader who wants to consult the sources is probably au fait enough to realise this. That's why inlines aren't a GA criterion here. At FA level, I would expect much much more, but the article is clearly attributed. Geometry guy 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Geometry Guy makes a valid point. It's also important to note that citation policy does not require in-line citations for each sentence or even page numbers for each in-line citation. Read the policies; examine prior policy discussion on talk pages. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this is just about there now, especially with that ugly "conflicted over" phrase gone. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delist; Although this is a fascinating and well-written article, for me there are too many statements that still need explicitly citing. A couple of examples: "...it is believed that Bashō gave up the possibility of samurai status and left home." Believed by who?; "Apparently this poem became instantly famous." According to..? I think it's rather impolite to fact-bomb someone's hard work, so I haven't added citation needed tags, but I am happy to go though and do this if it would help. EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  That's the kind of actionable comment we need! I've pinged the author. If no interest is shown, I'm happy to interpret "no consensus" as "delist"; otherwise, I hope these minor details can be fixed, and we can interpret "no consensus" as "list". Geometry guy 10:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  The "apparently" is the opinion of Ueda, which is sourced in the next clause of the sentence. I have provided an additional reference for the other statement. Shii (tock) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Good. If EyeSerene and Shii can work together in the next 3 days to fix minor issues like this, then I will list. Otherwise this GAR has gone on way too long and I will delist. Geometry guy 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  If consensus isn't clear in a protracted GAR, past procedure has been to archive as no consensus and keep the article listed as GA by default. That said, I believe we should keep this article - it may be short and sweet, but it covers its subject well. My main concern is the reliance on Ueda's two books, but I can accept that Bashō may be a niche topic. -Malkinann (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is difficult to find other books on the subject. Using JSTOR has been suggested and I will verify from those additional academic sources over time. Shii (tock) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'll take that as permission to annotate the article - if I've misread the sentiment above, please feel free to revert my tags! I've tried to stick to the minimum required, in my view, to meet the GA factual accuracy criterion. Also, that "Apparently" is still causing me concern - was it 'instantly famous' or not? Maybe we could get round this by saying something like "According to Ueda, this poem became instantly famous."? I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the 1985 paper have a title of its own, or is it just untitled in the journal? -Malkinann (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual reference for this is the cover flap of a translation of Oku no Hosomichi. Obviously you cannot cite that. When you search Basho and "600 ri" on Google Books, there are two other references-- one is the untitled reference which I transliterated, and which is sadly unavailable in my library, and the other is a 1948 reference which I suppose we could use instead. Come to think of it, that's more sensible and I'll substitute it now. Shii (tock) 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep due to major improvements in citations. Given the dearth of reliable sources covering a subject like this, I think it does an admirable job with sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a lot better than it was. I do think the sourcing could be better (I mentioned at least one source above), but I feel I've been at FAC recently a lot more than GAN or GAR, so I feel a little out of touch with the GA standards. Though I'm not going to vote "keep," as I do hope that the improvement continues, I wouldn't protest at all if it were kept. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as GA, and much credit to Shii for his hard work. At ease ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has improved, particularly the referencing. Thanks to Shii and everyone else who pitched in to help. Majoreditor (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)