Talk:Bara (genre)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this article looks to be in a pretty good state! I have a couple questions about images and sources, one MoS nitpick, and a few comments on prose. I also included a number of suggestions for improvement which aren't strictly related to any of the GA criteria (and which, therefore, you're obviously free to ignore - if you'd like me to reorganize my comments to clearly separate them out, let me know). Feel free to reply to comments inline.

Initial review
Minor MoS layout issue: portal bar should go in the bottom matter, not in "see also", per MOS:ORDER.

Re WP:RS: the first citation is to a tumblr post, http://gaymanga.tumblr.com/post/102108686772/i-see-that-the-wish-to-move-away-from-the-term, which set off my spidey sense. I don't think that makes it automatically unreliable, but I wanted to ask: is the author of that blog considered a subject matter expert on bara? For the claim that the term "bara" has historically been used in Japan as a pejorative for gay men, I wonder if you could find a more obviously authoritative source (e.g. a dictionary)? I can understand using self-published sources like this for some other claims (relating to the history of the term's use on the internet).

Re images: I'm not sure whether it's possible to find any appropriately licensed images to accompany the article, but I think it's worth discussing. Being such a visual subject, it would be really nice to have an image or two in the article. Have you already tried searching for bara artists who have licensed any of their work under CC? At the very least, I bet you could find a photograph or other non-bara depiction of the sort of body type typically depicted in the genre, for use in the "Characteristics" section?

Could you mention the literal meaning of "rose" in the Etymology section? It would help contextualize, for example, the comparison with "pansy". (I realize it's given as a gloss in parentheses in the lead, and referred to obliquely in the Etymology section, but I think it bears an explicit mention in that section)

I don't think the link on "umbrella term" to Hyponymy and hypernymy is helpful. There are some other wikilinks that I think are on the borderline of overlinking (e.g. colloquialism, genre), and a few that are bordering on WP:EGG (e.g. the text "history of homosexuality in Japanese visual art" pointing to ), but this is more a matter of personal taste than correctness.

"Characteristics" as a section heading is a little vague. Do you think something like "Subject matter" or "Content" might be clearer?

The term "bara" has... per MOS:WORDSASWORDS I believe bara should be italicised in contexts like this, rather than in quotation marks.

Er, actually, bara should probably be italicised throughout according to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, right? (And same with yaoi?) I don't see any MoS guidance about foreign words as words. Looking at a few articles listed at List of Latin legal terms, it seems like they mostly keep the term italicised and don't apply any further formatting or punctuation. A priori and a posteriori uses quotation marks around italics in the words-as-words context, but doesn't even do so consistently.

The History section has a "See also" hatnote that points to a couple articles in ja wikipedia. What do you think about instead using ill to give redlinks to English versions of the articles, along with bluelinks to the Japanese versions? (Same comment on the ja wiki links in the "See also" section at the bottom of the article)

as well as stories based on age-, status-, or power-structured relationships. The stranded hyphens are a little awkward. What do you think about rewording along the lines of "as well as stories of relationships structured around age, status, or power"?

Tagame's illustrations of muscular, hairy men in G-men (which Tagame co-founded in 1995) have been cited as a catalyst that shifted fashion and aesthetics and among gay men in Japan, away from... Structure of this sentence is a little off (specifically the parallel structure of "and among gay men").

Jiraiya's has appreared in apparel created by several American fashion brands, including Opening Ceremony[25] and Pretty Snake. Jiraiya's art? Jiraiya's characters?

It wasn't until this point that I really noticed the article was using the term "gay manga" throughout instead of "bara". In this particular instance, it becomes confusing if the reader interprets "gay manga" in its compositional sense (i.e. manga depicting gay characters/relationships), rather than as a technical term equivalent to "bara" as it's used in the west. What do you think about using "bara" instead in this sentence?

Regarding the larger issue of "gay manga" vs. "bara" throughout the article, is the former term used as often as the latter in English sources? And if not, is there a compelling reason to use "gay manga" anyways? I'm no subject matter expert on this, but it does seem a little odd that "bara" is the title of the article, but another term is used in its place in most of the text.

Why does this belong in this article, rather than in yaoi? It seems like it would only be relevant here if, in making these criticisms, commentators contrast these aspects with bara. Or if they criticise bara in the same breath for the same reasons.

Could you provide a little more context here? e.g.
 * "In certain contexts, the gachimuchi (ガチムチ, "muscle-curvy" or "muscle chubby") sub-genre of gay manga has..."
 * "In certain contexts, depictions of the gachimuchi body type (ガチムチ, "muscle-curvy" or "muscle chubby") have..."

The hatnote "See also" link to seems a little weird to me. Nothing in that article relates to the topic of "crossover with yaoi". I think just having the link under the "See also" section is probably sufficient. Alternatively, if you think Billy Herrington is a noteworthy example in the context of bara, I'd mention it somewhere in the text. Colin M (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, apologies for the delay in responding to this. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. To answer your concerns/points:


 * Portal bar has been moved.
 * The Gay Manga Tumblr is maintained by Graham Kolbeins, who is also the editor of The Passion of Gengoroh Tagame: Master of Gay Erotic Manga (link) and Massive: Gay Japanese Manga And The Men Who Make It (link), the two definitive English-language primary sources on gay manga, as well as a founder of Massive Goods, the largest distributor of gay manga in the English-language world. I've added a substantiating source from Massive (p. 40, "Literally 'rose', bara is an antiquated slur for gay men.")
 * Added photos to the "Characteristics" and "Notable creators" section.
 * Made bara/rose connection explicit in Etymology section.
 * Removed some overlinking.
 * Renamed Characteristics to "Genre characteristics" to clarify what is being discussed.
 * Made italicization of bara consistent throughout the article.
 * I tried using the link structure you suggested for the External links to the Japanese Wikipedia, but it looked very strange to have red links in that section, so I decided to leave it as-is.
 * Rephrased as "structured around age, status, or power dynamics."
 * Fixed wording in Tagame and Jiraiya under Notable creators.
 * Changed used of bara in the yaoi instance you mentioned.
 * Clarified definition of gachimuchi in crossover section and removed Herrington meme.
 * Removed criticism of yaoi from that section. I agree it's not relevant; I think it's a carry-over from when yaoi and bara were not split into separate articles.


 * Regarding the broader question you asked of bara vs. gay manga: it's one that I've struggled with (and one I posed when I started updating the page and in a peer review request that ended up going nowhere). On one hand, "gay manga" is the nomenclature used to designate this genre within Japan, the nomenclature used in trusted English-language sources when discussing the genre, and is preferred over bara by creators of the genre. On the other hand, per WP:NCUE the use of the term "bara" by an English-language audience to refer to this style of art is an observable phenomenon, and is still used widely as popular vernacular by that audience, so I also don't think it would be correct to scrub "bara" from the article entirely. My compromise was to better explain the context around bara as a pejorative, explain the use of bara as a colloquialism used by non-Japanese audiences to refer to a specific art style, and use "gay manga" to discuss the genre itself. Morgan695 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Round 2
Looks great! There's just one small verifiability issue I'd like to take care of, then I'll be happy to pass this.

The citation for these two sentences doesn't seem to substantially support them. It talks about the fact that bara isn't widely used in Japan, and that its use to describe gay manga is a recent, Western invention. But it doesn't support the explanation of how the western usage originated (heterosexual administrators of message boards and chat rooms, etc.).

In particular I think describing the revival of the term as "pejorative" is contentious enough that it should be cited. (The tumblr source only goes as far as describing the revival of the term as a 'misappropriation') Colin M (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry, that was a referencing error on my part. I've updated the references to substantiate the message board claims with a different post from the Gay Manga blog and Massive (relevant sections excerpted below):






 * 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Also – do you think it would be acceptable to use the cover to G-men #1 as the lede image in this article, similar to how Yuri (genre) uses the cover to Shiroi Heya no Futari? The fair use rationale would be similar to the one used on that particular image in the Yuri article:
 * The image depicts the cover of a topic discussed in the article.
 * The image illustrates an educational article related to the entity that the image represents.
 * The image is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods.
 * The image is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media
 * The image is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value, nor could one be created.
 * The image is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorized by the owner of the image.
 * Morgan695 (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on fair use, but my guess is that this would not fly (and that the usage of the cover in Yuri (genre) is probably not appropriate, but it managed to fly under the radar so far). The aspect of WP:NFCCP that I think this fails is 1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
 * I think this criterion is interpreted pretty strictly. For example, I know that non-free photos are basically never permitted for articles about living people because, as long as the subject is alive, someone could in theory take a photo of them and release it under a permissive license (even if no free photos currently exist). Similarly in this case, even if there's currently no extant gay manga art licensed appropriately for use on Wikipedia, it's not impossible for someone to make some at some point. The G-men cover is okay for the article about G-men itself because there's no conceivable free alternative that would adequately illustrate the subject. Colin M (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sourcing update. I've marked the article as a GA. Really nice work on the article. It's well written, organized logically, gives a good introduction to the topic for an unfamiliar reader, and it's tremendously well sourced. Congrats! Colin M (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)