Talk:Snakes and Earrings

20-minute article assessment

As requested as part of the current Women in Green editathon, I've had a look through this article with an eye towards GA nomination, and honestly I think it's ready to be nominated. A few points to think about:

• It seems strange to have the third section in the article be the one which discusses the background to the novel; I would be inclined to put that first
• All of the academic analysis discussed is English-language and written by westerners. Obviously this is English wikipedia and that is to be expected, but I wonder whether there's any Japanese-language scholarship on the book? I don't think this is strictly necessary at GA-level, but if you were ever to nominate for Featured Article this would certainly be asked!
• The citations to Welsh and Driscoll have parenthetical page numbers, but those to Holloway's two articles and to DiNitto don't: any reason for this? Generally I would include page numbers for all of these longer articles.

None of this is an impediment to GA status, though, and I would expect that a review would go fairly smoothly. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, thanks so much for taking the time to look this article over. The feedback is really helpful. I'll make a few changes based on your comments (section order, +Japanese analysis, page numbers for long articles throughout) and then start the GA nomination. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Indignant Flamingo (talk · contribs) 22:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:54, 9 July 2024 (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.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.	Balanced view reflecting sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
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.

• Copyvio check - I reviewed the matches over 3% found using Earwig's Copyvio detector and had no concerns - matches were the title and attributed quotes.
• I'm not convinced that fair use would apply to using more than one image of book covers. The fair use rationale contains the phrase "the primary visual image" which suggests to me that this can only apply to one. Happy to be pointed to policy/guidelines/precedent that say otherwise.

  Hm, I think this is down to me making a stronger distinction between translations as different versions of one article topic (more like a book and a film than one book with different covers) than is probably defensible given our more conservative approach to non-free images. I suppose I thought that's why we had a "section" option in "purpose of use". But I don't think removing it causes any great loss of understanding in any event. Pulled the American edition image.

• Spot check on "attended middle school, but became anorexic and engaged in self-harm" - no issues.
• I suggest wikilinking sophomore

  Linked.

• I'm not sure whether "Her father continued to support her writing," is meant to refer to him "allowing" her to read certain books as mentioned earlier - is "continued" right here?

  Maybe Holloway is (well, was, he unfortunately passed away a few years ago at a far-too-young age) framing too much of a mother-opposed/father-supported dichotomy and that's leaked into my prose here. Good catch. I clarified the tangible support in text.

• Spot check on "Cultural studies scholar Mark Driscoll, writing in Cultural Critique, argued that while the book's graphic descriptions of tattooing, self-harm, and violent sexual activities revealed subcultures unfamiliar to many readers, Kanehara's portrayal of her characters as "consumerist, closed-off, and unwilling or unable to communicate with people outside their tribe" reinforced popular stereotypes about Japanese youth, particularly the part-time workers called freeters" - no issues.
• Spot check on "David Holloway, writing in Japanese Language and Literature, came to a similar conclusion, noting that despite the depiction of Lui as a fringe character rejecting society's rules, she ends up assuming a domestic role consistent with expectations of Japanese women in mainstream society" - no issues
• A bit inconsistent in that we have "Cultural studies scholar Mark Driscoll," but other commentators are not introduced. Not a blocker to GA status though, and perhaps not always necessary when the journal they are writing in is mentioned in the prose.

  For consistency I've removed the descriptor. I agree that the role is kind of obvious from the journal title. Also, most of these scholars are in the fuzzy global studies/Japanese studies/media studies space and maybe I shouldn't be in the business of defining them in wikivoice. Kiriu Manashita is an exception, because she writes under multiple names in different fields (e.g. as sociologist, as book review editor, as poet) and it's important to point out that yes, this is that same person. Plus it's not as easy for English readers to find out who the Japanese scholars are anyway, so I kept the descriptor for the other cited Japanese scholar as well.

• I'm not sure that Walsh is is suitable source - see discussion at RSN about Cambridge Scholars. Apart from that, good to see what seem to be some solid academic sources being used.

  I've pulled the Welsh part. Clearly CSP publications range widely, and we could politely say that its name is no guarantee of quality. That said, in this case the volume is clearly a passion project from someone who was trying to get more visibility for, shall we say, more peripheral Lancashire academics by inviting their submissions for a themed book on "The Short Story". Ailsa Cox, the main editor, was a professor at a public university with no great research reputation (Edge Hill), and Welsh was a graduate student at Lancaster University at the time. So from an academic reputation standpoint, and a peer-review standpoint, clearly not at the same level as tenured professors of Japanese studies publishing in leading journals or university press volumes. I don't think Welsh is wrong, but in the end it's just a more colorful restatement of what DiNitto and others are already saying, so pulling it takes away almost nothing substantive from our readers.

• Spot check on "In January 2004, Snakes and Earrings won the 130th Akutagawa Prize." - no issues.
• Spot check on "Kanehara appeared at the Akutagawa Prize announcement ceremony wearing "an off-the-shoulder, cut jersey shirt with exposed bra straps, a flared mini skirt, stiletto heels, mid-thigh nylons, multiple earrings and grey-tinted contact lenses" - no issues. At first this appeared to be inconsistent with WP:UNDUE, but having read the source it seems OK.
• Spot check on "as well as the adult-oriented magazine Weekly Playboy" - I don't think the source supports "adult-oriented"

  Was basically using that as filler to distinguish between "Japanese versions of" GQ/Cosmo and "a similarly title adult publication that is not a Japanese version of" Playboy, but just putting "as well as" separates them anyway, so I just pulled the "adult-oriented" bit. Anyone clicking that link will immediately get that information if they want it anyway.

• Spot check on "unprecedented commercialization" - if using DiNitto's phrase, I think they should be credited in the prose.

  I think so, too! Did that.

• Spot check on "particularly unsatisfactory ending" - no issues.
• Spot check on " issue containing the prize-winning stories had sold over 1.1 million copies, and the book edition of Snakes and Earrings had sold over 500,000 copies." - no issues wiht acuuracy, but it would be useful to add some context into the article, e.g. that it was "about double the normal circulation" for the magazine)

  Added the relative increase in sales, from the same source/page as the sales figures.

• Maya Jaggi could be linked.

  Linked in text, authorlink in ref.

• Structure, content and wording of the article seem generally fine for a GA. Lead is a decent summary of key points from the breadth of the article. Thanks for all your work on the article.

  BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for taking this on, and for your helpful review and comments. I'll interleave responses to your list above as I take care of things, to keep things all in one place. Should be fairly quick. I'll ping again after I've addressed the open issues. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  BennyOnTheLoose, apologies for multiple pings in a short time, but I think I've responded to all the issues you've raised above. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you notice something else, and/or if these responses need further development. Thanks again for putting the time into reviewing this article, and for producing really helpful insights and suggestions for improvement. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  No apologies needed. Great work on this, I'm satisfied that it meets the criteria for a GA, so I'm passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.