Talk:Teikō Shiotani/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Earwig finds no issues; sources are reliable as far as I'm able to judge.
Suggest linking pictorialism in the lead (you link it in the body).
- Linked. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
"He was the eldest son of the sixth patriarch": what does "patriarch" refer to here? Lineage of the company owners?
- No, head of the family. Our man Sadayoshi/Teikō was the eldest son. We assume that he was the sixth in a succession of eldest sons (or anyway eldest of the sons who survived their fathers and weren't regarded as invalids). The first of what my source calls patriarchs would have been his great×4 grandfather (let's call him G4G); he would not have been the eldest son but (as far as I understand these matters) he would have been above averagely affluent and ambitious. G4G's father may or may not have had the surname Shiotani; if he did have, then G4G would have set up Shiotani shintaku (新宅, a new household with the existing surname); if he didn't have this, then "Shiotani" might, for example, have been quasi-donated by a family with plenty of land or other assets but no [male] heir. Or something like this; NB I only have a vague idea of this kind of thing, and unfortunately I can't find an article about it. (The article "primogeniture" concentrates on monarchies.) I'll leave the text as is for a couple of days or until I have a brainwave (whichever comes earlier); I could then cut any mention of patriarchy and simplify it to Sadayoshi Shiotani (鹽谷 定好, Shiotani Sadayoshi) was born on 24 October 1899 in Akasaki (since 2004 part of Kotoura), Tottori, to a family who owned a shipping agency. His grandfather had held various important civic posts, and had some interest in photography. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) PS The article "Historical inheritance systems" is a little better, but still not what I need; I expect that I'll end up deleting this "patriarchal" talk. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- What you say makes sense, but if there's nothing we can link to I think it would be simpler to eliminate the word. If we know for sure that this usage means he was the sixth in a line of eldest sons we can say so, though as you say ideally that would require a cite too. Up to you how you handle it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now fixed, I hope. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- What you say makes sense, but if there's nothing we can link to I think it would be simpler to eliminate the word. If we know for sure that this usage means he was the sixth in a line of eldest sons we can say so, though as you say ideally that would require a cite too. Up to you how you handle it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- No, head of the family. Our man Sadayoshi/Teikō was the eldest son. We assume that he was the sixth in a succession of eldest sons (or anyway eldest of the sons who survived their fathers and weren't regarded as invalids). The first of what my source calls patriarchs would have been his great×4 grandfather (let's call him G4G); he would not have been the eldest son but (as far as I understand these matters) he would have been above averagely affluent and ambitious. G4G's father may or may not have had the surname Shiotani; if he did have, then G4G would have set up Shiotani shintaku (新宅, a new household with the existing surname); if he didn't have this, then "Shiotani" might, for example, have been quasi-donated by a family with plenty of land or other assets but no [male] heir. Or something like this; NB I only have a vague idea of this kind of thing, and unfortunately I can't find an article about it. (The article "primogeniture" concentrates on monarchies.) I'll leave the text as is for a couple of days or until I have a brainwave (whichever comes earlier); I could then cut any mention of patriarchy and simplify it to Sadayoshi Shiotani (鹽谷 定好, Shiotani Sadayoshi) was born on 24 October 1899 in Akasaki (since 2004 part of Kotoura), Tottori, to a family who owned a shipping agency. His grandfather had held various important civic posts, and had some interest in photography. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) PS The article "Historical inheritance systems" is a little better, but still not what I need; I expect that I'll end up deleting this "patriarchal" talk. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
There's no date given for his acquisition of the larger camera, but as written it seems a little out of place, as the next two paragraphs end with him setting up the Vest Club. Would it make more sense to move the sentence about the larger camera to after the paragraph about the Vest Club? Though I also see later in the article that he never gave up the Vest Pocket Kodak, so alternatively how about adding "though he continued to use the Vest Pocket Kodak for the rest of his life" to the sentence about the larger camera to make the subsequent paragraphs seem more natural?
- Yes, this is awkward. Unfortunately the source doesn't say when he got the large format camera. I've adopted your latter suggestion (with a slight change because, as the article goes on to say, in his later years Shiotani dispensed with the vest-pocket body and just used its lens). -- Hoary (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"Shiotani calculated that his photography from 1915 to 1935 had added up in the following way: still lifes, 2.5 (out of 10); human figures, 2.8; scenery, 3.6; animals, 1.1." I'm not sure what this means -- fraction of his photography devoted to these subjects? If so, how about using percentages directly, which would help convey that; and some phrase like "devoted to these subjects" would make it clearer.
- Tweaked accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
"and Takeuji surmises from this and from Shiotani's occasional photography of cemeteries and human bones that he may have been an early exponent of Surrealism in Japanese photography, although Surrealism in the visual arts was little known in Japan until later (1937) and the degree of Shiotani's awareness of Surrealist trends overseas is unknown." Unsourced.
- Source added. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- "of pre-1945 photography to be profiled in Ryūichi Kaneko and Ivan Vartanian's survey Japanese Photobooks of the 1960s and '70s." Unsourced; I suppose one could see it's source to the named book, but I think adding that as a citation is worth doing.
- The article now says Edited by Shiotani's great admirer Shōji Ueda and printed and published in Yonago (Tottori), Album 1923–1973 was later one of only four books of pre-1945 photography to be profiled in Ryūichi Kaneko and Ivan Vartanian's survey Japanese Photobooks of the 1960s and '70s. Within this, Japanese Photobooks of the 1960s and '70s is linked to a description within the article of the book. Adding to this sentence a reference to the book seems redundant. Removing the link from the sentence and then adding the reference wouldn't be so bad, but within this article it would be an anomalous way of referring to the book. I don't have a copy of the book. I could get hold of one fairly easily; but while I don't, I'll say that the description of its coverage as "forty or so books" (Marc Feustel, here) or "forty odd examples" (Reiko Tomii, here) sounds right. I don't remember Kaneko or Vartanian saying that four among the circa forty were/are of pre-1945 photography; it's a number that I derived from an examination of the circa forty descriptions. I hope that this wouldn't be regarded as some kind of "original research" but if it would be, please don't hesitate to say so, and I'll chop it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, wouldn't it suffice just to move the current footnote to the end of the sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I looked at this suggestion, I looked at the paragraph, I repeated both ... and I still didn't see how moving the footnote would help at all. But moving it also wouldn't do any harm; and so I shrugged and went ahead and moved it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- You're quite right; I must have been confused when I wrote that. I've reread your previous paragraph to try to ensure I'm no longer confused. I think examining the "circa forty descriptions" in the book is perfectly adequate to allow us to cite the book. I see your point regarding linking to the book and simultaneously citing it, but the two things serve different functions; it's one of those formalisms that occasionally comes up, and I think it would be fine to just add a citation to it. I also take your point that if Kaneko and Vartanian don't make a point of how few early books they include, perhaps we should not substitute our editorial judgement for theirs, but for GA I'm fine with having it either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've tinkered with it again; hope it's OK now. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect. Sorry I was out to lunch for a few minutes on my earlier reply! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've tinkered with it again; hope it's OK now. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- You're quite right; I must have been confused when I wrote that. I've reread your previous paragraph to try to ensure I'm no longer confused. I think examining the "circa forty descriptions" in the book is perfectly adequate to allow us to cite the book. I see your point regarding linking to the book and simultaneously citing it, but the two things serve different functions; it's one of those formalisms that occasionally comes up, and I think it would be fine to just add a citation to it. I also take your point that if Kaneko and Vartanian don't make a point of how few early books they include, perhaps we should not substitute our editorial judgement for theirs, but for GA I'm fine with having it either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I looked at this suggestion, I looked at the paragraph, I repeated both ... and I still didn't see how moving the footnote would help at all. But moving it also wouldn't do any harm; and so I shrugged and went ahead and moved it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, wouldn't it suffice just to move the current footnote to the end of the sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- The article now says Edited by Shiotani's great admirer Shōji Ueda and printed and published in Yonago (Tottori), Album 1923–1973 was later one of only four books of pre-1945 photography to be profiled in Ryūichi Kaneko and Ivan Vartanian's survey Japanese Photobooks of the 1960s and '70s. Within this, Japanese Photobooks of the 1960s and '70s is linked to a description within the article of the book. Adding to this sentence a reference to the book seems redundant. Removing the link from the sentence and then adding the reference wouldn't be so bad, but within this article it would be an anomalous way of referring to the book. I don't have a copy of the book. I could get hold of one fairly easily; but while I don't, I'll say that the description of its coverage as "forty or so books" (Marc Feustel, here) or "forty odd examples" (Reiko Tomii, here) sounds right. I don't remember Kaneko or Vartanian saying that four among the circa forty were/are of pre-1945 photography; it's a number that I derived from an examination of the circa forty descriptions. I hope that this wouldn't be regarded as some kind of "original research" but if it would be, please don't hesitate to say so, and I'll chop it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Did he have a day job, or was his family rich enough that he didn't need one?
- A good question. Yes he did have one; but for what period, I don't know. In this photograph (from this page) we see studio props. Takeuji (in the Mitaka catalogue): "At that time [i.e. some unspecified time after the war], Shiotani established his own photo studio next to his house and was running that as well." On the need for an income, Takeuji describes him as "born into a wealthy family who owned a shipping agency", and Tsutatani (in the Shimane exhibition catalogue): "[D]espite being the eldest son, Teikō was not coerced into running the family business but allowed to devote himself to photography." Shiotani's works have been preserved with admirable care, but Shiotani the man remains a mystery in some ways: the chronology in Yume no kageri provides detail for some things, but doesn't seem to mention any studio and says nothing whatever about the period from 1957 to 1970. The article you're now checking currently says that Shiotani "was freed from a career in the family shipping business and instead allowed to pursue photography", and "After the war, Shiotani opened a photo studio next to his house and also continued photographing for his own interest"; I think that this is all that the sources allow us to say. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"A notable example is Bird's-Eye View of a Village of 1934": this is cited only to the photograph; I think we need something else to say it's "a notable example".
- Yes, excellent point. I've changed this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Will do spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version. I don't have access to these sources; can you quote the supporting text?
FN 5 cites "When Shiotani was 14, he participated in a photography event at Karo (賀露) harbour in Tottori."
- 一九一三（大正二）年 ● 一四歳 ● 六月二二日 ● 芸術写真の同好の士が集まって鳥取市賀露港で撮影会を開催し、後に「光影倶楽部」となる「写真クラブ」が結成された。塩谷定好もこの集まりに参加していく。 [I've reformatted slightly but of course have left the text intact.] Well, this is embarrassing. Google Translate or similar will (or anyway should) tell you something like "1913 (2nd year of the Taishō era). Fourteen years old. June 22 ..." I lazily wrote that he was 14. Wrongo! This is a chronology, and within it 1913 is among the minority of years for which only a single event is described -- yet for each year, a single age is provided. The editors' point is that 1913 was the year in which Shiotani turned 14. However, he did so four months after this event. (I've also cited this chronology elsewhere, but am relieved to find that this citation is the only one in which I've mentioned Shiotani's age.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
FN 3 cites "His Shadow (Kage) appeared in the March 1925 issue of Camera. As editor of both magazines, Kenkichi Nakajima [ja] realized that Shiotani was unusually talented."
- The first work by SHIOTANI to be published in a magazine was his “Still Life” cat 1 that appeared in the January 1925 edition of “Geijutsu Shashin Kenkyū”. NAKAJIMA Kenkichi (1888–1972) praised the work saying, ‘this print takes a broad view of things, skillfully splitting up a simple mass to portray the subject. As a result, although it may be thought to be lacking in depth, it treats objects as being three-dimensional. Furthermore ... the whole picture has an overall rhythm makes it interesting.’ The work expressed the brilliance of the light while the simplified volume of the shapes within the square frame imbued the space with structure, while at the same time, to quote Cezanne, it ‘treated nature by means of the cylinder, the sphere, the cone,’ demonstrating tendencies towards the Western avant-garde world. He followed with his “Shadow” cat 3 that was published in the March 1925 edition of ARS’s “Camera”. From this time, NAKAJIMA Kenkichi, who was responsible for selecting the works for “Geijutsu Shashin Kenkyū” and “Camera”, was quick to realize SHIOTANI Teikō’s talent. The ellipsis isn't mine; it's there within what I reproduce. Perhaps "overall rhythm makes it interesting" should be "overall rhythm that/which makes it interesting", but I reproduce what I read. The magazine is either Camera, Ars Camera or, I suppose, "Ars's Camera": there's no reason to capitalize "ARS", which isn't an abbreviation. This is a (lavish) exhibition catalogue; "cat" something is a catalogue number. The cited source fails to say that Nakajima was the editor (in chief) of either magazine. He was the editor of Geijutsu Shashin Kenkyū, a magazine which, Shirayama says: was associated with the tendency in art photography called the Besu-tan (Vest [Pocket], Single [Lens]) School after Nakajima Kenkichi, a leader of this tendency, became editor-publisher in April 1923. Merged with Camera (see above), another Ars publication, in October 1923 in the aftermath of the Tokyo Earthquake, the magazine restarted as a separate publication in September 1924, only to merge again with Camera in April 1926. In her description of Camera, Shirayama doesn’t mention Nakajima. I've reworded this more precisely. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
FN 11 cites "Susumu Shiotani (塩谷晋) accepted a crystal obelisk at Photokina on his grandfather's behalf."
- 展覧会場では、孫の晋（すすむ 一九五四 – ）が代理として表彰を受け、クリスタルオベリスクを贈られて、多くの人々に祝福された。 -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The edits you made in response to the spotchecks seem minor enough to me that no further checking is needed. All that's left now are a couple of unstruck points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Last issue fixed; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)