Talk:Noh/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this on. At a first reading it seems a fine candidate, with only some small issues to tidy up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: ok; lists: A couple of lists near the end are a little doubtful but in the context of the article, and given that there's no obvious alternative, I think they're acceptable.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Need a ref for the Theme section (the 5 groups)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

A little copyediting is needed: if you don't mind, I might just do this rather than trying to list each tiny instance.

Wikilinking: It would assist readers if terms and places were linked. Perhaps Tokyo doesn't need linking, but Osaka probably does.

Italics: it isn't clear when Japanese terms are being italicised. The simplest rule might be just to italicise all of them, though with familiar terms like Shinto and Samurai that would seem too much. For less familiar terms, I can't see the logic. Why, for instance, do we have iemoto italicised but okina not? This will necessitate a trawl through the whole article.

'Etymology' says twice that Nogaku encompasses both N and K. Maybe once would be enough.

'Origins': the numbers of untranslated Japanese terms must be making this article rather hard going for many readers. I have wikilinked a few terms, but I'd suggest that if we need to know that Dengaku, Sarugaku, Shirabyoshi, and Gagaku contributed elements that evolved into Noh, we need a few words of explanation or 'gloss' on each of these things. (If they're not terribly relevant, on the other hand, then we'd be better off without them.) There also seems quite a bit of overlap with 'Etymology': perhaps the two sections would be better merged; if not, the overlap needs to be removed or reduced between the sections.

'Origins': how did moving to Kyoto help? How (if at all) was this move connected to the class struggle?

'Jo, Ha, Kyu' - three words or one? The title has three, the text one. Why does this concept get a top-level chapter to itself, or to put it another way, if it's that important, why is it so short? Would it be suitable to include it with 'Performance elements', even if it is a bit abstract? (ok, probably fine as it now is)

'Plays': if there are 240 plays from 2000 texts, then over 1700 of them have never been used in a play? Or does a play span multiple texts?

'Subject': 3 categories: says who? Maybe Genzai and Mugen need to be translated. I guess 'earthly' and 'supernatural'?

'Some famous plays': I'm a bit leery about allowing plays to be 'famous' if they're neither cited nor bluelinked to their own Wikipedia articles. We ought really to have a citation for every 'famous play' in the list. The claim that the categorization is the (redlinked) Kanze school also needs citing.

English or American? We ought to use just one - not too worried which one. It looks as if the article began with 'theatre' though 'theater' is now used quite a bit, for example.

Style: In 'Costumes' we have "whether that be the formal robes": are you comfortable with the subjunctive here? Many editors would probably avoid it.

'Stage': I suggest we move the photo of the indoor stage here (it can go on the left of the text) as the text mentions it in paragraph 2.

'Composers': Why is Benjy Britten listed and linked, but not described at all? Needs some text.

'Theatre practitioners, Composers': these long lists are not very readable, aka not particularly encyclopaedic. It might be better to turn them into text, writing some sort of connected prose about these Japanophile westerners and drawing out whatever it was that attracted them (citations needed). A few photographs or other images might help, too. (I'll leave this one on file. I don't think it's a fatal objection but I doubt FAC would like it.)

While these westerners were clearly influenced by Noh, I haven't encountered any source that connects them together or makes generalization among them. I agree that a prose might be more effective if some connections among these people could be found. I'm hoping this section would help English speaking readers make connections between Noh and whatever they're interested in or familiar with. Decafespresso (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

'Aesthetic terminology': not sure what the point of this is, so late in the article. Are the terms needed for readers to understand the rest of the text? If so, the section should go earlier, and the terms, in italics, should each be used at least once in other sections. Alternatively, some sort of example should be provided for each term, to give readers some kind of clue as to how the terms relate to specific plays, for instance. (I'm doubtful about this and will leave it on file, but it's not fatal. If anyone else objects to it, the section can be cut.)

'Audience etiquette': a photograph or two, e.g. of the actors filing out, might be helpful. (Again, this is a wish not a requirement.)

Added a ref for the Theme section Decafespresso (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm now happy to say the article is well up to the required standard, and both interesting and beautiful too. Congratulations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)