Talk:Three Beauties of the Present Day

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three Beauties of the Present Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'll review this shortly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: A couple of issues jump out at me, the italicized Japanese words are not given English translations until "Description and analysis" when they should be referenced upon first usage. I find and issue with the repeated usage of the honorific names instead of the actual name, this might be an WP:HONORIFIC matter, but its professionalism at its most basic. All the "O-Hisa" and "O-Kita" usages fall under this.

Some terms are imprecise uses, but I doubt much can be done for "large number of woodblocks", but "traditional traditional Japanese era divisions" (Text only, covered via markup) is fixable. Some terms like "pleasure quarters" are fun euphemisms, but at least linking to Hanamachi should be done then. Also imprecise is the line - "a wealthy merchant offered 1500 ryō for her, but her parents refused and she continued to work at the teahouse." - it does not make it clear for her marriage or purchase, or else. Another question is why footnote "e" is not in the main text, it reads better in the main body. Now, pardon me if I am more familiar with his shunga works (related to my failed attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage a related evolution - I swear), but I thought this work was part of an ongoing series of sorts. Feel free to correct the ill-informed thoughts of mine, but don't forget to add a link to the article from the Utamaro page gallery.

This article is largely ready for a GA pass, but it does need a few fixes to meet the criteria. And while I spot checked some of the details, I do not have access to much of the material - I have little reason to doubt its authenticity. Though I am positive, at least one of these ladies, I believe Naniwaya Kita had a print with a poem attached to it, and I think Takashima Hisa had been identified in another work as well. That is likely relevant given that it adds to the background. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• the italicized Japanese words are not given English translations until "Description and analysis": no, but they're given glosses (e.g. "nishiki-e colour woodblock print", or "bijin-ga genre of pictures of female beauties"), a style I've chose for readability, leaving a technical style in a technical section. Parentheses drag down the readability of the prose, I think, and thus they should be avoided when reasonable.

Those glosses still need to be marked as such for readability because they are redundant. That's the problem. Now nishiki-e may be so-so in the lead, but "Bijin-ga" in the lead is questionable. In the Background section "nishiki-e" should be noted and there is no "gloss". Ukiyo-e is not explained early on, but this one is sufficiently obscure as well to most readers that its meaning should be explained. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole first paragraph of the opening "Background" section is an oveview of ukiyo-e---what do you think is missing? "Bijin-ga" is glossed as "genre of pictures of female beauties" and "Nishiki-e" is glossed as "full-colour prints". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• "O-Hisa" and "O-Kita": my sources refer to them either by full name or with the "O-" prefix, but never by only their family names or unprefixed given names. If there's a guideline somewhere that says to remove the prefix, I will, but otherwise I think I should be following the sources.

WP:HONORIFIC is a guideline and the preceding "O" is by definition a way of concerning honor in current usage. Historically, female servants were addressed by the "O" instead of the modern "-chan", but this is still polite formal speech for addressing from pre-war Japan. The problem I have with it is simple: Its not the real name and its an (unnecessary) honorific. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed it except where noting that's how it's sometimes given. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• but "traditional traditional Japanese era divisions" (Text only, covered via markup) is fixable: sorry, fixable in what way? I don't understand what's broken.

Duplication of "traditional" - It actually reads "traditional traditional". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• terms like "pleasure quarters" are fun euphemisms, but at least linking to Hanamachi should be done: I've linked to Yūkaku in case case it splits off into its own article, since it's yūkaku specifically the sources talk about. "Pleasure quarter" is hardly a euphemism---perhaps you intend to imply it's a euphemism for "brothel" or something, but the entertainments of the yūkaku were far more extensive than just whoring. At any rate, when there's a widely-accepted English term in use, I prefer to use it rather than the Japanese term---per MOS:JARGON: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do."

Fair enough, it didn't have its own article, but that will do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• it does not make it clear for her marriage or purchase, or else: neither does the source, unfortunately.

Ah! Could you indicate that ambiguity comes from the source in a footnote please? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Another question is why footnote "e" is not in the main text, it reads better in the main body.: I thought it read kind of trivia-y, but thought I should still include it. I've moved it to the body now.

Trivia is debatable, but and most "trivia" is useful - multiple depictions further elevates the significance of the subjects and adds to the backstory. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought this work was part of an ongoing series of sorts: Utamaro had a number of series from the same time that included the same models, but this one wasn't one of them; the titles were prefaced with a series name, such as with the Types of Women's Physiognomies and Famous Beauties of Edo.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• add a link to the article from the Utamaro page gallery. : Done.

Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I believe Naniwaya Kita had a print with a poem attached to it, and I think Takashima Hisa had been identified in another work as well: they've both appeared in quite a few prints (as has Toyohina), and they didn't need to be "identified"---Utamaro names them. I could have sworn I'd mentioned it in the article---perhaps I accidentally cut it. I've thrown in a line about it in the "Publication and legacy" section now.

Thanks and sorry, but I know some are not explicit- as noted in this own article, I didn't want to overstep my bounds on assumption of something that I couldn't remember and wasn't sure if I read correctly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I do not have access to much of the material: what's so frustrating about working with Japanese sources is how few of them are available online, which means going through all the books in the relevant section of the library and hoping you don't overlook what you're looking for. I'm looking forward to the day Japan joins the full-text-search wonderland that is the 21st century.

Agreed on that! Though there archival practices are good for physical texts, there is a clear lack of respect for digital archives. They may exist, but it is quite the task to get newspaper articles from even a few years ago - I've lost a few key sources because of that, but got lucky that it was snapshoted and taken in full by others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost done and you are welcome. Just those discussion points remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so I will pass this. One final note though, please add the ISBN for Kondō, Fumito's 歌麿抵抗の美人画. Its not part of the GA criteria, but I find it most helpful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the isbn. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hairstyle

Per the comments on the FA review, I discovered what the hairstyle is called. It is 燈籠鬢島田髷 （とうろうびんしまだまげ）. Here is an illustration of how to make it. They use a kind of brace ( 鬢張り　びんはり) to hold up the flares on the side. There are videos of how to make it -- it takes almost 30 minutes. This hairstyle seems to be a characteristic of Utamaro. It appears in almost all of his bijinga and he's often mentioned in connection with it.

Here is an academic paper on it, called The Birth of "TOROBIN" : The Reception of Chinese Culture in Edo Period [in Japanese]. If we talk about it, it could be used in a cite.

So perhaps the text could say that Toyohina's kimono is more elegant than the simple ones of the other 2 models, but all 3 models have a distinctive flaring hairstyle was popular at the period and that is a characteristics of Utamaro's bijinga. I don't know if we have to mention the full name in the text -- "tōrōbin-shimadamage" is quite a mouthfull. But we could mention it in a note. Also I've seen 2 explanations for the name Lantern 1) Most often, that there is space between the individual strands of hair, so that you can see through it to the background, like a lantern. 2) Once, that it resembles the overhanging eaves of a lantern. And I don't like the word "sideburns" that you see used to translate "鬢 Bin". We'd have to think of a better word than that. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just dropped mention of the hairstyle right when you messaged me about this. I'm not sure how well it will go down to talk about the hairstyle if the sources for the picture don't talk about it. There's an article on the Shimada (hairstyle)—perhaps this info could go there, and we could link to it? I have seen "sideburns" used to describe female 'burns, but always in the context of white men who find it disgusting that Asian girls won't shave them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored mention of the hair (without a comparison to the other two) and linked to Shimada (hairstyle). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How about if we add the following to the Shimada article?

An elaborate version of the Shimada that became popular in the mid-Edo period (18th century) was called the Tōrōbin Shimada. It featured wide flares at the side and is often seen in ukiyo-e prints by artists such as Utamaro. The name means "Lantern Shimada", and is said to refer to the way that the background can be seen through the flares on side, like scenery seen through a tōrō lantern.

And we could add the print of Toyohisa reading the letter, where you can see the background showing through. Or the Hairdresser print from the Utamaro article. That would give an idea of how the hairstyle is made.

And then in this article, we could say that like the other 2 models she is wearing this elaborate hairstyle that was popular at the time. But the kimonos are different. The hairstyle is pretty striking, I think people might be interested. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sumptuary edicts

I found a reference for the censorship mentioned on the FA review pages.

Another example was the ban in 1793 on prints with the names of women other than courtesans. The intention appeared to involve a desire to maintain social distinctions by protecting the reputations of women who, although connected with the floating world, were not actually prostitutes, such as geisha and teahouse waitresses. FAQ: What were sumptuary edicts?

This is good overall on this topic. It also explains what was in the sharebon that got Kyōden in trouble. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's plausible—even likely—but without a Reliable Source linking this driectly to Utamaro, this is WP:SYNTHESIS, or possibly even WP:OR. Both the Viewing Japanese Prints article and Julie Nelson Davis's Utamaro and the Spectacle of Beauty mention the edicts, but only in the context of Kōmei Bijin Rokkasen from 1796. Japanese sources are the most likely to spell these things out, but I think you're probably aware that that means you probably won't find something online (unless it's a blog or some other non-RS)—Japan seems intent on keeping its texts analogue. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How true. Hmm. Rather than OR it seems to me like this is more of a logical deduction. But I guess if we don't have a direct source it could be left as a topic for further study. – Margin1522 (talk)

OR is probably too far (I'm just not sure where the line between SYTH and OR is), but "deduction" is pretty much what WP:SYNTH is: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This means that, sometimes, something you know to be true simply has to be dropped from the article. For instance, I happen to know that Françoise Mouly's birthday is October 24, 1955—I even have e-mail verification—but it's a fact that hasn't been mentioned in RSes—so we're stuck with plain 1955 in the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

TFAR discussion for this article

Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Three Beauties of the Present Day. — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Kitagawa Utamaro - Toji san bijin (Three Beauties of the Present Day)From Bijin-ga (Pictures of Beautiful Women), published by Tsutaya Juzaburo - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Kitagawa Utamaro - Toji san bijin (Three Beauties of the Present Day)From Bijin-ga (Pictures of Beautiful Women), published by Tsutaya Juzaburo - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 1, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-06-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Three Beauties of the Present Day is a nishiki-e colour woodblock print from c. 1792–93 by Japanese ukiyo-e artist Kitagawa Utamaro. The triangular composition depicts the busts of three celebrity beauties of the time: geisha Tomimoto Toyohina, and teahouse waitresses Naniwa Kita and Takashima Hisa. Each figure in the work is adorned with an identifying family crest. The portraits are idealized, and though at first glance their faces seem similar, subtle differences in their features and expressions can be detected. The luxurious print, made with multiple woodblocks, was published by Tsutaya Jūzaburō and is believed to have been quite popular.Painting: Kitagawa Utamaro