Wikipedia:Peer review/Kitsune/archive1

Kitsune
I'd like to bring this article toward FA status. I think it's within reach of being a GA at least, and I'd like comments about further improving it. I'm aware that it currently lacks inline citations and am already gathering sources so I can proceed to put those in place -- that's the biggest need I see at present. There is also one unsourced statement, which I am looking into. Any comments on content, style, etc. would be appreciated. Shimeru 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Shimeru. My thoughts: On your way to FA status, you will need a larger lead section, one that summarizes the article's contents. The lead has an especially important job to do for this particular article, because the reader may have a hard time grasping what its subject is: foxes? foxes in Japan? foxes in Japan in popular culture? If it's "foxes in Japan", what makes this subject so special; that is, why don't we have an article on "foxes in England"? I'm not being sarcastic, but rather trying to explain what goes through a reader's mind (mine, perhaps not the best model) upon beginning to read the article. An improved lead will help explain the scope of the article. When the lead says "They are also associated with mythical beliefs in Japanese folklore", I feel like something is missing. The "also" implies that a related statement was made in the previous sentence(s), but the previous sentence is the very first one, which says that Japan has two subspecies of fox. In summary: fully explain the scope of the subject Kitsune in the lead. Regards, – Outriggr § 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A good point. I think this one might have been a relic of the original splitting of the page into sections.  I'll try to provide a better overview in the introduction.  Thanks for the response. Shimeru 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. The lead is much better! Also, I was wondering if you plan to add a short summary section to "Kitsune in fiction" - it was a good idea to split that stuff into its own article, but the "summary style" suggests that you place a summary paragraph about "Kitsune in fiction" in the Kitsune article itself - so the section is not empty. – Outriggr § 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That would probably be a good idea. My main concern there is preventing that section from being overrun again.  There's a tendency to overindulge with trivia items and popular culture, yet at the same time, the pop-culture impact is great enough that it warrants a mention.  I'll see what I can do to summarize while still guiding contributions to the subpage. Shimeru 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it mostly in relation to your goal to submit a featured article candidate. Blank sections don't go over well there. :) – Outriggr § 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I have a short blurb in there now; may expand it just a little bit more when I finish getting my sources together.  Hopefully the details template will help prevent additions.  I think I should probably remove the main template, since I'm using details, but haven't done so just yet. Shimeru 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're still watching here, I hope that as you add references, you will make them in-line—again with WP:FAC in mind. Sorry if I'm speaking the obvious. (And thanks for the note earlier!) – Outriggr § 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. The references themselves are good, though I may have another one or two to add... I just need to collect them together so I can go back and cite specifically.  With any luck, I'll have a good number together by Thanksgiving, so I can work on it over the weekend.  Once I get those in place, and do one more copyediting pass, I think GA is the next step.  Thanks again. Shimeru 09:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for copyediting input down the road, you're welcome to ask. I cunsidor my self good at it. – Outriggr § 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article's title is "Kitsune," indicating that it's about foxes in Japan, but only one paragraph is about foxes (I might have started the paragraph, and someone else contributed a wonderful photograph). The article itself clearly focuses on kitsune in Japanese folklore, so I recommend renaming the article appropriately. Being an advocate of naming articles in English, I'd suggest "Foxes in Japanese folklore." Fg2 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's mainly because the animal itself is already covered at fox. I believe the Japanese word is most frequently used to refer to the mythological creatures, which explains where the title came from.  (Somewhere lower would be "fox spirit," which is also used for the Chinese fox in mythology, and "fox demon," used mainly by Lafcadio Hearn -- admittedly a very influential author in the field.)  It probably doesn't make a large difference, but given the growing recent usage of the term in Western (and imported) popular fiction, I think "kitsune" is likely to be a more common search term than "foxes in Japanese folklore."  (No article with that title existed, in fact.)  I've created Foxes in Japanese folklore as a redirect for now; I can change it (and fix all the double redirects) if it's deemed necessary.  There's precedent in the similar split between tanuki and raccoon dog. Shimeru 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Kitsune in Japanese folklore" would likewise be acceptable, since the article is, as I said, not about kitsune generally but about their position in folklore. Fg2 06:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Shimeru that the article title is fine as is. The meaning of the word when it appears in English is what's important, and in English, it does (apparently) denote "foxes in Japanese folklore". – Outriggr § 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)