Template:Did you know nominations/Shinsarugakuki

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 23:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Shinsarugakuki

(

)

... that the Shinsarugakuki, written in the mid 11th century, provides an insight into Chinese trade at the time, as well as accounts of comic sketches, lion dances, puppets, rice-planting songs, and solo sumo wrestling?
ALT 1: ... that the 11th-century Japanese fictional work Shinsarugakuki provides insights into Chinese trade, comic sketches, lion dances, puppets, rice-planting songs, and solo sumo wrestling?

Reviewed: Faux Namti Bridge

Created/expanded by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 19:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is of sufficient length and appears to be properly referenced. The hook is referenced by footnotes 2 and 3. However, at 215 characters it's too long. See "ALT 1" for a shorter alternative that I wrote. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to find the source for the "mid-11th-century" assertion in the hook: the first two sources do not seem to go beyond Fujiwara no Akihira's dates (which make it almost certain this is an 11th-century work, as ten-year-old prodigies are extremely unlikely), and the third source merely says that Fukuoka had become a busy port "by 1052", and that the book was "of the period", an extremely vague term that could certainly stretch back to the early 11th century as it mentions Chinese trade starting in 842 and then jumps to 1052. Unless there's some other source, I think the article's "composed in about 1052" is unsupported by ref 3, and it is not safe to date the book beyond "11th century": the hook change is easy, deleting "mid-", and the article's assertion should be removed or adjusted. However, other sources may allow the "mid-" to stay: I was able to find this description of a talk which asserts 1050s or 1060s; would this be reliable enough? Or the simple statement in Gender in Early Classical Japan of "mid-eleventh-century" on page 445 of the PDF (which I can't link to here, because the Wikipedia spam filter gets annoyed). Neither supports "1052". Without additional sources such as the two I found with a little Googling, I don't see how the hook can stand. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I removed the words that refer specifically to 1052 in the lead. I can not find the word "mid-" in the article and I had appreciate if you kindly remove it. I have also not been successful in finding more reliable references to testify the year as 1052. I hope this meets your observations.--Nvvchar. 17:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't believe "mid-" was in the article; 1052 was the basis for using the phrase (it's right in the middle of the century), and now that you've deleted it from the article, I've removed "mid-" from the ALT 1 hook. That hook (but not the original) is approved, as is the rest of the article per SMUconlaw, now that the issues I raised have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)