Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murasaki Shikibu/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011.

Murasaki Shikibu

 * Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Over 2000 years ago in Heian era Japan a lady-in-waiting wrote a work of fiction that's survived as a world classic. This project would have been impossible without help, so thanks to for answering my questions about all things Japanese, to  for formatting, and to  and  for prose polishing. Enjoy! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tsunoda or Tsunonda?
 * Adolphson or Adolsphson? Check for inconsistencies/typos
 * Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors/editors
 * FN 75: which Shirane 2008?
 * No citations to Shirane 2008a (except possibly FN 75), Bryan 1930, Kokusai Bunka Shinkōkai 1970
 * Explanatory notes should meet same standards of prose as article text
 * When only month and year are available for dates, be consistent in whether they are separated by a comma
 * I'm a little confused by the formatting used for journals - for example, what does the 2 represent in the Inge citation?
 * Check source listing for Ueno. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching these Nikkimaria. Working on them. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed everything. Regarding the confusing citation style for journals, the numbers in parentheses were volume numbers, which were followed by issue numbers. According to my most recent MLA edition, issue numbers are not required for bibliographic sourcing, so I've removed them. I do want to note that one journal article is in the references section (Knapp) because I downloaded the html version and don't have page numbers for it, so I treated it as an unpaginated online source. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for downloading, uploading and checking! Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – The article is in need of copy editing. I've made a few changes but it requires somebody with greater skills. Also, I wonder whether the first paragraph of the lead should be simplified by the removal of some of the details relating to her name. Aa77zz (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks As77zz. I agree re the first para in the lead - have simplified. The information is in the body and not necessary to have such detail in the lead. Thanks for the prose tweaks. Will go through myself from top to bottom to copyedit. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have been been through - prose tightened a bit, MoS errors fixed. Let me know if it needs more - am out of my comfort zone as far as the subject is concerned and the writing reflects that. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * nicely has been through as well, working on the prose and fixing mistakes. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Only one so far, but I guess there may be more.
 * The lead begins by saying that The Tale of Genji was written in Japanese, but ends by saying that it was translated from classical Japanese. As I understand it, Kana is a script, not a language? In any event, the distinction here is unclear. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it - when Genji was written kana was only being introduced and quite new, so Japanese was still mostly an unwritten language, except for poetry, diaries and such. The sources in the translation section call it classical Japanese, but without kana there wouldn't have been a written language. It makes sense it would have been translated from classical Japanese because the language changed, and by the early 20th century classical Japanese was no longer in use. Think of it as Beowulf being written in English with a new script, and then translated to modern English from some indermediate form of middle English. Does that help? At any rate, I've removed the classical Japanese and will go into more detail on the Genji page, when I get there. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Easter Egg is that the lead begins by saying it was written in Japanese, the language, not the script. I'd be quite happy, for instance if you switched the Japanese and classical Japanese around, as in "The Tale of Genji was written in classical Japanese". Otherwise it's not at all clear what's meant by "classical Japanese". Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't written in classical Japanese - it pre-dated classical Japanese. I've removed the easter egg, and put in Japanese language and am waiting for input from u|Bamse who knows about Japanese - I don't. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then who translated it into classical Japanese from whatever it was written in? Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All the Japanese scholars who continued to make scrolls as the language changed between the 11th and 19th centuries. But I don't actually have a source that tells me that, and I thought I'd try to dig up that information for the Genji page because it's a valid point. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not much of an expert when it comes to language. u|Bendono would be the one to ask, but he's not too active on wikipedia nowadays. From what I understand, since the original manuscript has not survived, we don't know for sure what it was written in. The language was most likely Early Middle Japanese (the language of the time) and the script either all kana or kana mixed with Chinese characters. The oldest extant manuscript from the 12th century is in kana only. Does this help? bamse (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Just wanted to add that IMHO for the purpose of this article it is sufficient to write that the Genji was written in Japanese (as opposed to Chinese). More details should go into the Genji article. bamse (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bamse. I've sprinkled some clarification in a couple of spots. Malleus let me know if it helps, or whether it needs more clarification. Good point, btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bamse that its out of the scope of the article to distinguish, and imo the page should try and vear away from this. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Image review by Ruhrfisch. Let me start by saying that the images in the article are all free, as all but one are old enough to be free (and thus have free photographs in the US). The one modern image is a banknote, which is also free, That said, the image file descriptions could be cleaned up in places, as follows (some of these are pretty nitpicky): I will try to review the article itself, please let me know if you need help (I have fixed a few things as I reviewed images). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * General comment - for files on Commons of artworks would it be possible to use one licnse consistently? As it is PD-Art|PD-Old and PD-Japan are all used.
 * File:Lady Murasaki at her desk.png - I would expliclty say the source is the British Museum, not just have a link (now a reader has to click on the link to find out the source). ALso since the death date of the artist is know, using  as a license might be better (since the current PD-Art license uses date of publication, which is often difficult to determine)
 * File:Hyakuninisshu 057.jpg - the caption in this article is much more informative than the description on the image file, which should be fixed. Is the date really only "presumably Edo period" or can the presumably be removed? Also the first link is dead - since the other two work for sources, I would just keep them
 * File:Fujiwara Michinaga.jpg - most importantly this needs a source for the image. It also needs a template to format the information similar to the other files.
 * You found the book it was published in in the 1800s, and I found it used in The Japan Times to confirm the identity of the subject, so I think it is OK. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Murasaki Shikibu by Hiroshige.png, File:Ishiyama Moon Lady Murasaki.png, File:Izumi Shikibu.png, File:Akazome Emon.png, File:Sei Shonagon artist unknown.png, File:Prince Genji Kunisada.png, File:Murasaki Shikibu at Ishiyama-dera.png, File:Murasaki Shikibu with male court poets.png, and File:Lady Murasaki writing.png could also use the PD-Art|PD-Old license since the artists or dates are known and the artists have to have been dead over 100 years
 * File:Ch5 wakamurasaki.jpg needs a better source and the date of the print (not the date it was originally uploaded). Although the source is specified, how did this version get here - is it a scan of a book or a photo of a print or from a website or what?
 * File:Murasaki Shikibu.jpg and File:Ch20 asago.jpg both needs to give their sources and should use a template to better organize the information given.
 * File:2000 Yen Murasaki Shikibu.jpg - the two licenses confused me until I realized that the art is taken from old works - can this be made clearer / more explicit?
 * Thanks Ruhrfisch. Quick question - I only recently noticed that we don't have sources for some of the ones I took from Commons, File:Ch20 asago.jpg for instance. I've been trying to find them on the web, in museum sites, all over and can't. Are you saying they should be removed until we can find sources? I've already removed the two monochromes without sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It worth mentioning that most of these images are many hundreds of years old and lack contemporary documentation, in instances the artist's name is lost to time, and many others do not have any definitave title. But Ruhrfisch's comments are well made and...working. Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the licenses and added sources for everything b ut File:Murasaki Shikibu.jpg. Can't find a source for this, still searching. I'll pull it if necessary . Truthkeeper (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to wait for a few minutes. I hadn't realized all the ones on Commons need templates - haven't done that yet. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Adding: I think I got them all. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a book that may be the source for the remaining tricky images attributed to Mary Griggs Burke may be from this Abrams book on an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from the collection. I will try to get it and check. Do you have a copy of "The Tale of Genji: Legends and Paintings" to check it?Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on Amazon and displays images, but I think they rotate because I haven't gotten the same result every time -, I have a pdf about his art - these actually were a series on a screen painting, part of a set, so I'm about 90% sure all of them are in that book. It's a book I'd like to see though, so I"ll put in an ILL order for it to check. He also painted this screen but the illustrations on it are different than the ones we have. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have one concern;
 * Non-English phases such as mono no aware should be marked up with Lang using the relevant ISO code for the language they use, thus:.
 * Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm a little confused about that. Mono no aware is a wikilink. If I were to link de facto would I have to add a lang tag too. I've written pages, that have passed FAC, where I've used French phrases and wasn't asked to add a lang code. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it has foreign roots, you're likely to find de facto in a good English dictionary. The rationale for using Lang is set out in its documentation. That Mono no aware is a wikilink is irrelevant; this is about the markup presented to our readers when they view the page in question. See also Manual of Style/Accessibility. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I added one and can go through and do it to all the Japanese words, but I don't see that it's rendering any differently and I'm losing the italics (which are supposed to be used per MoS), so afraid I'm still a bit confused about this. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can wikilink and achieve italics, thus:, which will render as: mono no aware. That may look the same to you, but if you view the source code in your browser, you will see that it includes language codes which are meaningful to assistive software and other machines.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I can understand how it's important for assistive software for a page like this. Will add. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear - thank you. Please help to spread the word!  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it for phrases and terms - I'm hoping that it's not required for names (!) Truthkeeper (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been meaning to comment but I've been very busy & still haven't read it all carefully. It's a very appealing article, but with some rather mystifying passages, which is perhaps inevitable. Anyway, I'll start:
 * Michinaga needs an introduction & explanation of his importance; in this respect it's perhaps unfortunate he first appears as an author.
 * The early spate of copy-editing has not cleared up all issues - perhaps too many cooks at one point.
 * It's something of a pity the first images are all much later in date. Are there too many images at erratic sizes? Perhaps a mini-gallery in mid-article?
 * What's the content & significance of the Harvard album? Prima facie the remarkable Tokugawa Museum handscroll (first in the gallery) should be given more coverage than this.
 * "After a series of political maneuvers Michinaga secured power through his daughter Shōshi, whom he declared Empress to Emperor Ichijō.[27] Although Ichijō had an empress, Fujiwara Teishi (Sadako c. 976 – 1000), daughter of Michinaga's brother Fujiwara no Michitaka, in c. 1000 Michinaga made the unprecedented move of having Shōshi named Second Empress (chūgū or "Inner Palatine") with Teishi retaining the title of "Lustrous Heir-bearer" (kōgō)." That's one of the rather mystifying bits.
 * More when I can. Johnbod (talk)
 * Thanks Johnbod, these are very helpful - I think it will take me a few days to work through them. I've wondered whether I should add, as all the sources do, that not much is known about her life as a disclaimer to some of the mystifying passages?  Truthkeeper (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you say, or convey, that; it's just the whole culture is so unfamiliar. We know an awful lot compared to any European court lady of her time. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Replies:
 * I've tried to de-mystify Michinaga and have added an explanation about his role at the beginning of the "Early life" and a bit in the court section. Let me know if it needs more.
 * Have been through copy-editing again, fixed and found errors, and more importantly fixed some structural issues.
 * I've swapped out the lead image for an earlier image and the image of Michinaga for an earlier image (though I'm not crazy about how it fits). I'd like to have the one of her with the violet kimono adjacent to the section explaining her name. I think the two images of her at Ishiyama Temple staring at the moon, although they're later, match well, but I could live without one of those if necessary.
 * I've tried to make the images more consistent in size and have rearranged. After thinking about it, I don't think a mini-gallery mid-text is necessary. I'm thinking enough artwork and sources exist to support a full article about the genji-e inspired by her work, and think that would be the place to showcase as much as possible in galleries.
 * I've added information about the Tokugawa emakimono (which I think would go in either a genji-e page or can even have its own page), - that was a bad oversight and needed to be added. Added images from the scroll as well.

I hope these satisfy your comments, which really were very good and helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I just don't know when I'll be able to give it a proper read through - over the weekend perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No rush. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Truthkeeper has in my opinion done a great job on this 11th-century Japanese lady. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting and prose polishing. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  Leaning support, with the disclamer that I'm a friend of TK, and have been copy editing on and off for a while, although leaving a lot of hidden questions and comments as I went. I think the prose are now more or less there, though Johnbod highlights a few points of vagueness above, which I'm confident can be resolved. Once these are dealt with I would be happy to go to full support, on the basis of well, all the criteria, except that its hard to judge comprehensiveness for sure given the subject, but I'm inclinded to give the benifit of the doubt given the quality of the sourcing and from what I've been reading up on over the last few months, since the page began. I echo the notion that the page is very appealing indeed from a visual arts point of view, if not a little naughtier than most. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ceoil. Let me know what else needs to be done -as you know I've gotten a little too close to the page and my perspective is shaky at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support great improvements...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I finally finished the article (after reviewing the images, above) and find it well written and quite interesting. It meets all the FA criteria and has my full support. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the supports! I'm pleased with the recent improvements, mostly the result of Johnbod's comments that made me see, finally, what needed to be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.