Year 24 Group has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 28, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Year 24 Group appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 January 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article contains a translation of Groupe de l'an 24 from fr.wikipedia. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's information in Manga#Shōjo manga about this group, including critical sources, that could be fruitfully used in this article. Someone more familiar than me with the sources and history should probably do this, though. — Quasirandom ( talk) 23:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Tone of this article is too complimentary of the group. It talks about about they "revolutionized" shojo manga. It claims: "They are said to have made manga into a type of literature." and "Their actions and success paved the way for the appearances of many female manga artists" without backing these claims with any independent source. -- Kraftlos ( talk) 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In the sources listed at the end of the list of the flower group, Norie Masuyama is not listed, and in Matt Thorn's Moto Hagio interview, Hagio describes Masuyama as not being a cartoonist herself, but that she loved cartoons, and she was Takemiya's "brain staff" - which I guess might be something like a muse or person that Takemiya would bounce ideas off. According to that interview, she introduced Takemiya to the idea of male homosexuality for women via Barazoku. Her role may have been more as a support, part of the milieu, like Junya Yamamoto??? -- Malkinann ( talk) 07:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead sentence
looks slightly confusing. Isn't the term mainly used for referring to the first group, and the post-group is another, related group? 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 08:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The year 24 group was highly influential in expanding the scope of subject matters in shoujo manga, as far as I have understood it. Should be added to the article. Good sources include writings by Matt Thorn, Paul Gravett and Frederick Schodt. 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 11:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate to say it, folks, but this article is a bit of a mess. I suspect the biggest reason is that there is no widely accepted definition of what the Year 24 Group was or who its members might be.
Right off the bat, the first sentence is a complete mystery to me. What is the other group referred to? As you can tell by the number of times my name comes up, I know a bit about this, and I have no idea what this second group might be. You can imagine my surprise, then, on checking the reference and seeing my own name. Thinking I may have written such a thing and forgotten it, I just reread my intro to Four Shōjo Stories and I can't find any reference to this second group. But here in this article, I see the answer a few sentences down. The second group is apparently the "Post Year 24 Group." This is just...silly. That would be pretty much every artist born after 1949, no? I have sometimes heard references in Japanese to "post Year 24 Group" artists, but that is not the name of group. It's simply noting that those artists came after the Year 24 Group and were presumably influenced by them. I strongly recommend removing this "two groups" business.
I am pretty sure that "two groups" trope comes from the Japanese version of this same article, but you should be aware that that version is in even worse shape than this one. Unfortunately, editorial policy is pretty loose in Japanese Wikipedia. Solid references are often (usually) missing, and original research is rampant. (If you read Japanese, take a look at the discussion. I just complained bitterly about this fact there six months ago. And have yet to receive a response.)
A second problem is this phrasing: The exact membership is not precisely defined, but includes[....]
No. No one can say any given artist is objectively a member of the Year 24 Group. There is no authority here. The artists labelled as such will all tell you they never considered themselves part of such a group. Various critics or fans or scholars make their own lists, and every list is different. I have my own, which, for example, doesn't include Riyoko Ikeda. More accurate phrasing would be, "The exact membership is not precisely defined, but artists mentioned by critics or scholars as possible members include [....]"
But then you would have to find concrete references by critics or scholars. For example, Osamu TAKEUCHI in his 1995 "Sengo manga gojū nen shi" ("Fifty Years of Postwar Manga History" writes "Such talents as Moto Hagio, Minori Kimura, Yumiko Ōshima, Keiko Takemiya, Ryōko Yamagishi, etc." (page 139) But in fact it's rare for a writer to actually offer a complete list. There's always an implied "et cetera." Kuno Nagatani, in his 1994 "Nippon mangaka meikan" ("Directory of Japan's Manga Artists") describes Hagio and Takemiya as members in their entries, and in his entry for Yamagishi describes her as being "Called a member of the Year 24 Group, along with Moto Hagio, Yumiko Ōshima, Keiko Takemiya, and Toshie Kihara." Which is curious, since he doesn't mention the group in his entry for Ōshima, and he doesn't even have an entry for Kihara. And then there's Yoshihiro Yonezawa's 1991 "Kodomo no Shōwa-shi: Shōjo manga no sekai II, Shōwa 38 nen - 64 nen" ("A Children's History of Shōwa-Era Japan: The World of Shōjo Manga II, 1963-1989"), which is ambiguous as well. The subtitle of the chapter on the relevant period includes a reference to the Year 24 Group, but Yonezawa never tries to define that group. The structure of the chapter can be interpreted to mean that he considers Hagio, Ōshima, Takemiya, and Yamagishi to be the group, but then again, it could be interpreted to include Chiki Ōya, Toshie Kihara, Mineko Yamada, Shinji Wada (a man), Sumika Yamamoto, Yōko Shōji, and Nanae Sasaya. And in her essay in that same chapter, novelist Azusa Nakajima includes Riyoko Ikeda. But these are all old references. No doubt there are plenty of others, more recent, that could also be cited. But SOMETHING has to be cited.
Which is a very roundabout way of saying that the term is nebulous and we should make very clear that it is nebulous, including concrete references and avoiding declaratives that we can't back up.
I suppose I could edit in all those references and edit out the statements that can't be supported, but some might feel I am trying to push my own ideas on the article and argue that I shouldn't be involved in editing. But I will just point out that although four things I've written are cited in this article, the one thing I wrote specifically about this topic is not: "The Magnificent Forty-Niners," in The Comics Journal #269, pp 130-133. Matt Thorn ( talk) 02:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
12:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
5x expanded by Morgan695 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Link20XX ( talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey I will be reviewing this article. I will start shortly.
Link20XX (
talk)
21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Morgan695: Hello. I have completed my initial review. Great job overall, just a few small changes are needed. I have made some small corrections for you.
History:
Members:
Analysis and influence:
(Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead). I reviewed the section and didn't see any areas where re-linking articles wouldn't feel like MOS:OVERLINK.
Other:
That's it. Ping me when they have been made and I will pass it. Link20XX ( talk) 23:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Morgan695: The changes you have made are sufficient and I apologize for the mistake. The result of this review is Pass. Great work with the article! If you could review one of my nominations ( Central Park Media and Your Lie in April) or even assess some of the articles I submitted for reassessment, it would be much appreciated. Link20XX ( talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Year 24 Group has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 28, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Year 24 Group appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 January 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article contains a translation of Groupe de l'an 24 from fr.wikipedia. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's information in Manga#Shōjo manga about this group, including critical sources, that could be fruitfully used in this article. Someone more familiar than me with the sources and history should probably do this, though. — Quasirandom ( talk) 23:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Tone of this article is too complimentary of the group. It talks about about they "revolutionized" shojo manga. It claims: "They are said to have made manga into a type of literature." and "Their actions and success paved the way for the appearances of many female manga artists" without backing these claims with any independent source. -- Kraftlos ( talk) 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In the sources listed at the end of the list of the flower group, Norie Masuyama is not listed, and in Matt Thorn's Moto Hagio interview, Hagio describes Masuyama as not being a cartoonist herself, but that she loved cartoons, and she was Takemiya's "brain staff" - which I guess might be something like a muse or person that Takemiya would bounce ideas off. According to that interview, she introduced Takemiya to the idea of male homosexuality for women via Barazoku. Her role may have been more as a support, part of the milieu, like Junya Yamamoto??? -- Malkinann ( talk) 07:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead sentence
looks slightly confusing. Isn't the term mainly used for referring to the first group, and the post-group is another, related group? 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 08:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The year 24 group was highly influential in expanding the scope of subject matters in shoujo manga, as far as I have understood it. Should be added to the article. Good sources include writings by Matt Thorn, Paul Gravett and Frederick Schodt. 惑乱 Wakuran ( talk) 11:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate to say it, folks, but this article is a bit of a mess. I suspect the biggest reason is that there is no widely accepted definition of what the Year 24 Group was or who its members might be.
Right off the bat, the first sentence is a complete mystery to me. What is the other group referred to? As you can tell by the number of times my name comes up, I know a bit about this, and I have no idea what this second group might be. You can imagine my surprise, then, on checking the reference and seeing my own name. Thinking I may have written such a thing and forgotten it, I just reread my intro to Four Shōjo Stories and I can't find any reference to this second group. But here in this article, I see the answer a few sentences down. The second group is apparently the "Post Year 24 Group." This is just...silly. That would be pretty much every artist born after 1949, no? I have sometimes heard references in Japanese to "post Year 24 Group" artists, but that is not the name of group. It's simply noting that those artists came after the Year 24 Group and were presumably influenced by them. I strongly recommend removing this "two groups" business.
I am pretty sure that "two groups" trope comes from the Japanese version of this same article, but you should be aware that that version is in even worse shape than this one. Unfortunately, editorial policy is pretty loose in Japanese Wikipedia. Solid references are often (usually) missing, and original research is rampant. (If you read Japanese, take a look at the discussion. I just complained bitterly about this fact there six months ago. And have yet to receive a response.)
A second problem is this phrasing: The exact membership is not precisely defined, but includes[....]
No. No one can say any given artist is objectively a member of the Year 24 Group. There is no authority here. The artists labelled as such will all tell you they never considered themselves part of such a group. Various critics or fans or scholars make their own lists, and every list is different. I have my own, which, for example, doesn't include Riyoko Ikeda. More accurate phrasing would be, "The exact membership is not precisely defined, but artists mentioned by critics or scholars as possible members include [....]"
But then you would have to find concrete references by critics or scholars. For example, Osamu TAKEUCHI in his 1995 "Sengo manga gojū nen shi" ("Fifty Years of Postwar Manga History" writes "Such talents as Moto Hagio, Minori Kimura, Yumiko Ōshima, Keiko Takemiya, Ryōko Yamagishi, etc." (page 139) But in fact it's rare for a writer to actually offer a complete list. There's always an implied "et cetera." Kuno Nagatani, in his 1994 "Nippon mangaka meikan" ("Directory of Japan's Manga Artists") describes Hagio and Takemiya as members in their entries, and in his entry for Yamagishi describes her as being "Called a member of the Year 24 Group, along with Moto Hagio, Yumiko Ōshima, Keiko Takemiya, and Toshie Kihara." Which is curious, since he doesn't mention the group in his entry for Ōshima, and he doesn't even have an entry for Kihara. And then there's Yoshihiro Yonezawa's 1991 "Kodomo no Shōwa-shi: Shōjo manga no sekai II, Shōwa 38 nen - 64 nen" ("A Children's History of Shōwa-Era Japan: The World of Shōjo Manga II, 1963-1989"), which is ambiguous as well. The subtitle of the chapter on the relevant period includes a reference to the Year 24 Group, but Yonezawa never tries to define that group. The structure of the chapter can be interpreted to mean that he considers Hagio, Ōshima, Takemiya, and Yamagishi to be the group, but then again, it could be interpreted to include Chiki Ōya, Toshie Kihara, Mineko Yamada, Shinji Wada (a man), Sumika Yamamoto, Yōko Shōji, and Nanae Sasaya. And in her essay in that same chapter, novelist Azusa Nakajima includes Riyoko Ikeda. But these are all old references. No doubt there are plenty of others, more recent, that could also be cited. But SOMETHING has to be cited.
Which is a very roundabout way of saying that the term is nebulous and we should make very clear that it is nebulous, including concrete references and avoiding declaratives that we can't back up.
I suppose I could edit in all those references and edit out the statements that can't be supported, but some might feel I am trying to push my own ideas on the article and argue that I shouldn't be involved in editing. But I will just point out that although four things I've written are cited in this article, the one thing I wrote specifically about this topic is not: "The Magnificent Forty-Niners," in The Comics Journal #269, pp 130-133. Matt Thorn ( talk) 02:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
12:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
5x expanded by Morgan695 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Link20XX ( talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey I will be reviewing this article. I will start shortly.
Link20XX (
talk)
21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Morgan695: Hello. I have completed my initial review. Great job overall, just a few small changes are needed. I have made some small corrections for you.
History:
Members:
Analysis and influence:
(Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead). I reviewed the section and didn't see any areas where re-linking articles wouldn't feel like MOS:OVERLINK.
Other:
That's it. Ping me when they have been made and I will pass it. Link20XX ( talk) 23:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Morgan695: The changes you have made are sufficient and I apologize for the mistake. The result of this review is Pass. Great work with the article! If you could review one of my nominations ( Central Park Media and Your Lie in April) or even assess some of the articles I submitted for reassessment, it would be much appreciated. Link20XX ( talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)