Talk:Toyohara Kunichika

Assessment

I see you asked for assessment and A-class review at the same time. Patience, patience. :-) It is probably a B, but needs work to go beyond that. One source, different citation styles, what you're hearing in the A-class review is exactly right. English sources are preferred, but not restricted to; if the best sources are in Japanese, use the ones in German and Japanese as well, they're not forbidden. advernturer is misspelled. If Ficke was influential enough that one book of his could sink an artist, should we have an article on him? Also if his name was Toyohara Kunichika, and that's what all the sources call him, we probably should move the article title to the full name. Beautiful pictures, well done there. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is solid and contains some excellent information. However, it doesn't go into enough depth, and the structure needs some work. I believe it could be a GA with a few more days of labor, but right now it isn't quite up to snuff.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   This is one of the article's major problems. There are a number of choppy paragraphs (a paragraph in "Life as an artist…" is one sentence), and the prose doesn't flow together very well. I would advise a review from someone at WP:LoCE.

   B. MoS compliance:

   There are some problems (footnote #19 appears to have no period before it), but they're minor. A WP:LoCE review will catch all such things, I expect.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The article is well-documented, but see below about depth.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   While the text appears to avoid OR, the section heading "The forgotten artist" is POV; some might call it OR. Keep it objective.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article needs more depth. Newland's book appears to have 175 pages, but the citations don't go beyond p. 40. In the text, the following sentence could make an entire paragraph, with explanation and examples: "As he matured he became a master of design and of drama." And so on.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't know much about the era (and see above about editorializing with section headings), but it appears to be mostly NPOV.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The images are superb, and they really bring the article to life. You've done some great work adding this artist's work to the commons. I wasn't sure about the big triptych in the middle of the page (maybe it should go at the end of the article?), but upon reflection I think it helps. I don't know if the signatures image adds too much (the type of the roman-letter versions should be smaller), but it is an interesting element.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   As I said, this article has a lot of potential and is well on its way. Good luck and please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol · Talk 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One further piece of advice

I would find more sources to use - relying so much on one book is not a good idea in the long run (e.g. if you want to go for FA status). John Smith's (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Answers to above critiques.

I have tried to address most of the issues raised. I expanded the explanation about the paucity of references in the reference section. I do not see how to address "master of design and of drama" without inserting my own opinion. I am a serious collector of Kunichika's work, so I could say a great deal based on my own knowledge and observations, but am constrained by Wikipedia rules. I absolutely WILL NOT cite any work I have not personally read. I consider that dishonest. "The Forgotten Artist" is a rephrasing of the title of the primary reference source. --Clhowson (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ficke - he was a very important collector of Japanese prints, and his book influenced fellow collectors. It is definitely not in the best seller category. His close friendship with a number of famous literary people, including John Cowper Powys, Amy Lowell, Katherine Ann Porter and Edna St. Vincent Millay (who was in love with him) gave his poetry credibility, but if you read it today, you will be left wondering why. (POV)

Thank you so much to all of you who have donated your time to helping me to improve this project. --Clhowson (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming the artist

I saw this article on the GAN page, and while I do not consider myself competent to review it fully, I wanted to point an area that I think would improve the article. I found the the artist's various name changes a bit confusing, until I read through the section twice. The lead gives no hint that he was known by another name, then the beginning of the first section appears to refer to another individual entirely. Of course, I was able to make sense of it by reading further, but then I felt compelled to go back and reread the section to ensure that I followed the progression correctly. Similarly, I found it confusing that the first sentence of the "Artist on the cusp of a new era" section reverted to the use of the name Yasohachi. I would encourage sticking to one naming system throughout the article (although of course his given name and the history of his professional name should appear). I also believe that it is customary under Wikiproject:Japan MOS to include the kanji for personal names after the romanji. Normally I would just make such changes, but when an author is trying to promote an article I prefer to defer to them. Good luck, I enjoyed reading this. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful critique and changes. I hope I have sorted out the name problem. I was not aware of the Wikiproject:Japan MOS regarding kanji. Unfortunately, I do not feel qualified to make that contribution to this article. If you are able to supply that information, I'd be very grateful. --Clhowson (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your help. --Clhowson (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toyohara Kunichika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will be doing the Good Article review for this article. I've only briefly glanced through it, but here are some things that really stuck out to me:

• The lead needs to be two full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article, including both his life and career. See WP:LEAD.
• All the pictures are scrunched up in the middle. Can any of them be placed elsewhere in the article?
• Please combine like citations in the notes section. To do this: in the first mention of a cite, write it like <ref name=example>Newland p 11</ref>, and on the second mention of the same source, write it like <ref name=example/>. Obviously, exchange the word example for a more suitable name. A few citations that can be combined include 3 and 6; 9, 12, and 14; 10, 13, and 16; 42 and 44; plus some others.
• When websites are used, please format them in the notes according to Template:cite web.
• Citations should go behind punctuation, without a space between the period and the number.
• The examples of signatures seems out of place. Why include it? Is he known for his multiple signatures? Has someone commented on his signatures? If text isn't included, it doesn't make much sense to include the image.
• Please wikilink full dates. June 5, 1835 --> June 5 1835.

I'll read through the article in depth later, so I can make more specific suggestions. Nikki311 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more specific suggestions:

• In Artist on the cusp of a new era, make sure all the quotes have quotations around them.
• He is known to have done some shunga (erotic art) , but attribution can be difficult as he did not always sign them. - source?
• When a ref is at the end of a paragraph, is it referencing all the information before it?

The article needs some pretty heavy copyediting for punctuation, grammar, and Manual of Style problems. If everything else gets taken care of, I don't mind doing that myself. The article will be placed on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Nikki311 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The seven days are up, so I'm failing the article as none of my suggestions were addressed. Feel free to use these suggestions in the future and renominate the article. Good luck! Nikki311 01:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toyohara Kunichika/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• ", (1835 — 1900)" – remove the comma, and remove the spaces around the em dash
• The lead needs to be expanded. Keep the two paragraphs, but expand on them.
• I believe a space is missing in "for ukiyo-eactor-prints"?
• "i.e. woodblock" → "which are woodblock"
• "on June 5, 1835, in" – link this correctly per MOS:DATE
• "Like most artists of his era and genre" – this paragraph needs a reference
• "Examples of signatures" – use the Gallery tag for this section; have a look at Help:Gallery

Gary King (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Revisited

I have made extensive updates. I am waiting for a permission for a section discussing signatures, but that is something I can do in the future. I would say the article is now ready for GA review. Thank you for everyone's patience and assistance. --clhowson (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

• "on (June 5, 1835), in" → "on June 5, 1835, in"
• "Kunisada - 1865" → "Kunisada (1865)". Same goes for the other image captions.
• References need to be formatted per WP:CITE/ES; many of them are missing a publisher.

Gary King (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

References 4, 6, 15, 19, 27, 35, and 41 are missing publishers. An example of web publishers can be found at Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare#References. Gary King (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Web citations have been fixed. My images have suddenly reappeared. I consider the article good to go. --clhowson (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use em dashes for year ranges, like in "(1841-1898)", per WP:DASH. Gary King (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have done this, I find that the page you referred me to says:

Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash (do not use a hyphen or slash (2005–08, not 2005-08 or 2005/08). A closing CE-AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986).

--clhowson (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes; first time I got that wrong – I posted that late at night. I fixed them. Page ranges in the references also need to use en dashes; for example, "pp 7-8" → "pp 7–8". Gary King (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm game. What next?

--clhowson (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please expand the lead to better summarize the entire article, per WP:LEAD.
• Could you copyedit the article? Some things, like "on (June 5, 1835), in ", don't make sense, and should instead be "on June 5, 1835, in "
• "as "Toyohara Kunichika" was born "Ōshima Yasohachi" on" – remove the quotes
• commas are needed in some places for pause; for instance, "Little is known about his childhood, but young Yasohachi,"
• ""Kazunobu."" → ""Kazunobu"." – punctuation goes outside of quote if it is not appropriate inside them per WP:PUNC. Happens several times in the article.

Gary King (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gary. Next?

--clhowson (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You have done excellent work on the article. Great job! I will now pass it for GA. Gary King (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Toyohara Kunichika.gif Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Toyohara Kunichika.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 29 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)