This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fall of Language in the Age of English/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Asilvering ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose comments

1. For writer Akio Nakamata, Umeda's support drove the popularity of the book on bookselling sites such as Amazon, despite the book's contents reflecting "linguistic nationalism" and Mizumura's "pessimism, ignorance, and arrogance": Maybe "Akio Nakamata wrote that..." or something? It's odd to follow "For Nakamata" with what is then stated as a fact. asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Since it's a combination of something that literally everyone would accept (Umeda's support drove Amazon sales) and something that not everyone would accept (that the book reflects Mizumura's ignorance), I went with "according to", which works either way. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 03:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Upon reflection and reexamining the Nakamata source, I just cut out the Nakamata thing. It was one example of a response to Umeda, but it's not specifically cited by Ogiue as part of the flame war escalation, and not needed to make the point. It's just one example I knew about. Also, rereading that post, there's stuff in there like "it's just Mizumura channeling her husband's ideas" and we don't need to give any of that any oxygen just to reinforce the obvious "there was a lot of negative response". Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 05:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   yikes, good call! -- asilvering ( talk) 16:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Tweaked this a bit more, because my read on the Ogiue piece is that an important bit of this particular flame war is the spread from Hatena to Twitter, triggered by a Hatena board member basically using a different platform to dismiss the comments on his own company's platform. Between these early flame wars and the huge increase in activity during 2011, it's no wonder that Japan is 2nd only to the US worldwide in Twitter/X adoption. But that's a different story. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 18:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2. The bit on flame wars in the next sentence is a bit backwards - as in, we hear about the flame war at the very end. Can you say anything more about it? Even something minimal like "Umeda's twitter response to Nakamata was the flashpoint for a flame war" would help, but if you can say anything about the flame war, that seems relevant. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Rewrote the first 2 paragraphs of that section to address this and other issues. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 05:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

3. Acknowledging seems a strange choice when it appears that Shirane is just "describing" (ie, nothing is being conceded/acknowledged, or at least, it doesn't seem so?). And is the "also" in "also observed" necessary? If it is, it seems to me that something has gone missing in this sentence (ie, what is the other thing?). In the same sentence, Mizumura's concession feels a bit off - she isn't conceding it, right? It's a fundamental assumption of her argument. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   When you're right, you're right. Addressed this in rewrite of first 2 paragraphs in that section. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 05:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

4. Novelist and poet Natsuki Ikezawa, reviewing the book for Mainichi Shimbun, largely avoided stoking controversy, imo this would work better with the previous sentences if the "largely avoided controversy" idea came first, or was at least signposted a bit. eg "some reviewers, like blah, largely avoided..." -- asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Good idea, incorporated into rewrite of first 2 paragraphs in that section. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 05:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Tweaked even further in line with the signposting suggestion to draw the contrast to online reactions. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 18:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

5. identified a concern about the state of modern literature as the driving force of Mizumura's book, but questioned the basis for Mizumura's concern, while also finding Mizumura's arguments from patriotism to be unpersuasive I think this reads better as "identified Mizumura's concern about the state of modern literature as the driving force of her book, but questioned the basis for her concern, and found Mizumura's arguments from patriotism unpersuasive." Up to you. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Changed to suggested version, swapping "the book" for "her book" to avoid any possible ambiguity about whether "her" refers to Mizumura or Ohtake. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 03:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

6. According to Mizumura, she originally intended... I don't think either of the "originally" in here belong - she did intend to do this, and she did do this, right? "Originally" implies the plan changed. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   As Mizumura tells the story in a preface to the English edition: Mizumura anticipated making some changes before eventually producing an English translation. Then Yoshihara initiated contact with a request to translate the Japanese version, and Mizumura agreed. But Mizumura did not anticipate how quickly Yoshihara would complete the direct translation (i.e. without those adjustments) and find a US publisher that was ready to go. So Mizumura, being already committed to other projects to an extent that she couldn't do all the work herself in a timely fashion, called in Juliet Winters Carpenter to do a "all hands on deck" collaborative expansion and revision for the English version. I've rewritten the originally/originally sentence to try to clarify the timing, sequence, and responsibility. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 03:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

7. Despite Mizumura's efforts You've got two variants of "claims" in here and might want to swap one for something else. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Good call, now one of them is "alleged". Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 03:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

8. Selma Sonntag's point about India should be expanded a bit (or removed, if you don't think it really fits). As it stands it's a bit too context-free for for someone to make much of it without reading her article. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

   Square peg, round hole, removed. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 05:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Source checking

1. Building on an analysis of Natsume Sōseki's work... Can you double-check this one? I may just be repeatedly skimming over it, but I'm only finding support for the second half of this sentence in this source. It looks from this source that the work she's building on is Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism - that should definitely be mentioned in the article, unless Shirane is hugely overstating its influence on Mizumura. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

   Ok, having read another article that talks about Anderson at length, yes, that should definitely be mentioned somewhere in here. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

   Short version: As the first paragraph says, she relies on Anderson for the argument about the emergence of Japanese as a "national language". But she uses Sōseki's work to talk about the disconnect(s) between today's Japanese and yesterday's Japanese, in the chapter with the English title "The Miracle of Modern Japanese Literature". So that's why those are separated that way. (Indeed, the book's Japanese title is a Sōseki reference.) I'll just clear that up a bit, so it says something like "Building on the Anderson analysis, she relates a history of the transition to a national language, then uses Sōseki's work to illustrate how this unique transition..." The Rubin source definitely emphasizes the Sōseki influence, even calling Sōseki her "touchstone", so I'll just add that as a second source on the sentence ending "Sōseki's time". I'll reply again here once that's done. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 01:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

   Okay, that should be clearer now. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 01:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

   Great! All done. お疲れ! -- asilvering ( talk) 06:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply