Talk:Khalili Collection of Japanese Art/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 02:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I will review this over the next couple of days. Can I just get some confirmation that MartinPoulter is available to answer any queries. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Yes, I'm very happy to help and very much looking forward to your feedback on the article. Because of work commitments I can't always respond immediately, but it should be within a couple of days at worst. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No dramas, just ping me when you are ready for me to take a second look or if you want clarification. I have just had a few reviews which seem to have been abandoned by nominators recently so wanted to check in first. Take my comments with a grain of salt. I will probably say if they are required to pass GA, but many are just thoughts I have while reading. Feel free to disagree with anything, you are the subject expert, I am just a lay reader. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• I usually read the lead last so I have a good sense of the article before reading the summary. However in this case I feel the lead is intended to be read as part of the articles body. There should be no information in the lead that is not covered in the body (at least not without good reason and even then only rarely). This is probably the biggest issue at the moment and GAs must comply with WP:LEAD. I would make sure that everything in the lead (Nasser, size, comparisons, context, etc) is covered in the body at some point. I almost feel that most of it could fit under background, with other parts used as introductory sentences to some of the other sections. Then it is just a matter of summarizing the info in the body into the lead. The lead might not even need to change that much (you can remove the cites if you want as it will be cited in the body). I think this needs to be done first before I review it properly. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: This is already great feedback! Looks like I've got into a bad habit with my article leads. I've now moved some content from the lead into the body, and created more summary content for the lead. The lead seems to be the right length according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length, but I welcome your view on whether there's enough summary of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead seemed fine size wise. I can't really tell if it is a good summary until I read the body. I will have another look tonight if it is ready. AIRcorn (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• advancing what could be created with enamel and with lacquerware. is the second with needed.

Removed.

• The Khalili Collection has been used in research to study how Japanese art was widely available in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th century, and influenced European art, especially Vincent van Gogh and the impressionists. Not sure I completely follow this. Do you mean study how widely available the art was or are you actually saying it was used to study how it was widely available?

I've rephrased.

• The 1995 catalogue lists what catalogue is this?

So the catalogue mentioned in the Publications section needs to be mentioned earlier, probably in the Khalili Collections section. I'll work on a definitive statement of that. Now added to the Works initial paragraph.

• The past history of samurai weaponry equipped Japanese metalworkers to create metallic finishes in a wide range of colours. Am I misreading this or is their something off with the grammar?

I think it's correct but too ornate. There was a tradition of people being skilled in metalwork because of the existence of the Samurai class. Due to this past history, they knew how to finish metal in a wide range of colours. Would a phrasing like that be better?

• decorated with gold with a process known in the West as damascening Is with a process right?

Repetition of "with" is clumsy- well spotted. Rephrased.

• You could probably redlink some of the artists if you want. I am sure they would meet our notability requirements

Good point.

• with pastes and with the firing process another double with. Maybe its just me, but it reads slighlty odd

I think I'm naturally too keen to imply "with A and separately B, not A&B" (I'm a logician by background) but looking again it doesn't matter and reads clumsily, so repeated "with" removed.

• Among the cloisonné enamel works Better to link first use of the word.

Second wikilink removed

• who has been called "Japan's greatest lacquerer" By who? Earle or is it more. It's in quotes so I feel we need to assign it to someone

I don't have the Earle article in front of me now, but I think this is Earle's opinion expressed in that paper about him. I'll look this up. Update: confirmed that this is a phrase used by Earle. I've removed the quote marks for consistency with similar statements in the article.

• Some of his works showed an influence of European graphic design, while he combined traditional Japanese and Chinese techniques with new technologies from the West.[ "showed an influence" or "had an influence"?

I want to convey "were influenced by European design, and visibly so". I don't mean "had an influence on". Is "showed the influence of" better?

"the" makes it clearer to me. AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• These included works by Nishimura Sozaemon, an embroidery firm appointed by the Imperial household. Is Nishimura Sozaemon a person or a firm?

Well spotted! The text says "the well-known firm of Nishimura Sozaemon", which I read as meaning the name of a firm but it makes more sense if NS is a person. Rephrased.

• Could you give me some more info about the Splendors of Meiji: treasures of Imperial Japan: Masterpieces from the Khalili Collection book. It says Broughton International Publications, but looking them up I am led to Broughton Publishing, which makes no sense. Also this page says it was published by the The Khalili Family Trust. I looked up John Earle and he seems like an authority. My concern is that it is used to support a lot of the text and makes some pretty key statements like:
  • Japanese decorative arts reached a new level of technical sophistication
  • impressing American reviewers
  • producing items more advanced than any that had existed before
  • The best examples from this period, including some in the Khalili Collection, could not be replicated today

There are more but this is enough of a sample to get the concern. I feel it is alright, but would like some confirmation on what sort of book it is (I have seen it regarded as a catalogue) and who published it (obviously a catalogue published by the Khalili family is not ideal for some of these statements).

This is a good point. The book is the official catalogue of an exhibition, with background texts about Meiji art in general. So it mixes scholarly essays about the Meiji era and its art with photographs and descriptions of objects in the collection. So for example there is a chapter titled "Artists to the Imperial Household" which explains broadly how and why the Imperial household appointed artists, then there is a section of catalogue listing works by some of the artists mentioned in the chapter. The publisher listed on the spine and title page is Broughton International Publications, but the copyright page says the copyright is jointly owned with the Khalili Family Trust. When I get time, I'll look more into the textual basis for these individual statements.

(P.S.) Thinking about this further, "best" shouldn't be used in that way and I should find an alternative. It seems from multiple sources that Japanese decorative art did reach some sort of peak of technical sophistication and definitely of international recognition in this period (almost trivially since they hadn't sought international recognition before the Meiji era). So the article should say things to the effect that there were things achieved by the artists that had not been done in Japan previously, weren't being done elsewhere in the world, and were attracting prizes and plaudits from foreign critics. So I don't think it's non-neutral for Wikipedia to make statements to this effect, but you've prompted me to see that the sourcing and wording could be better. I will try to add more sources to the Background: the Meiji Era section and re-word, but I still want to retain the factual point that these statements make. Update: mentions of "best" and "highlights" now replaced. Replacing some "exemplified"s. The claims you pick up are also made in other RS's, so I've diversified the sources.

• Tone: I understand you are a Wikimedian In Residence for the Khalili Collections. As such I have probably looked a bit harder at the tone than I usually do. Overall it is not too bad, but I do feel there are a few promotional words that creep in. Examples include "highlights" "exemplifying". Since I don't see how this is in any way connected to making a profit I am not too concerned, just pointing it out (exemplified is used quite a lot). Also listing all the catalogs and exhibitions seems a little bit overkill.

I'm putting my articles through review (AFC, DYK and now GA) to get exact this kind of feedback. Maybe "highlights" is the wrong word but I'm looking to convey "The thing, among this set of things, most likely to be taken to be interesting (for objective reasons which are spelled out)". What's a highlight is relative, so I don't feel it's evaluating the collection itself. I'm not attached to the word at all: happy to replace with a word that has that function. "Exemplifying" is just a word I personally like: I want to say "here is a trend or type of thing, and here is an individual object representing this trend" and that word seems ideal, but I get that I've relied on it too much. Would "represented" be better? With the publication list, I'm erring on the side of inclusion, but of course I'm open to change. Over at Talk:Khalili Collections we decided that listing all the publications and all exhibitions for all eight collections was excessive. Here I think there's a better case for having an exhaustive list on what's supposed to be a comprehensive article about the collection. Some of the exhibitions have generated their own media coverage, but I haven't bothered citing it all, so maybe the exhibitions are more notable than they look. Update: Here's a proposal. The Exhibitions list and Publications list contain duplicate information, because most of the publications are catalogues of the exhibitions. How about we keep the exhibitions list pretty much as is, but add the exhibtion catalogues as citations, then cut those catalogues out of the publications list, so it just shows the volumes of the official catalogue?

• Images are obviously all good. It is well written too. Lead is good.

@Aircorn: Once again, I'm very grateful for this feedback- just what I was hoping for. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Various further changes made MartinPoulter (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: Sorry for the delay. I am happy with everything here now. This meets the GA criteria and I am going to pass it. Congratulations. It has been a pleasure working with you. AIRcorn (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)