Talk:Gusuku period/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 03:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kanguole (talk · contribs) I will review this, as it is adjacent to some topics I've worked on. I have access to all the cited sources. This is my first review, so I may be a bit slow and/or make mistakes. 23:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this article, which I believe is broad and focussed. I have a few comments.

Comments by section

Lead

• consider {{infobox archaeological culture}}? (not a GA requirement)
  • I forgot this was an infobox; thank you! - G
• Mention namesake gusuku only constructed in second half of period
  • Done. -G
• I was going to suggest just saying that the gusuku were fortresses, but I see that "resembled" is there because "castle" is linked to Japanese castle. Maybe that's a bit EGGy, but it does feel inelegant.
  • Fortresses is probably less ambiguous.- G
• 3rd and 4th sentences: see comments on Language below
• "at Kikaijima" -> "on Kikai"?
• "emergence of the Proto-Ryukyuan language" isn't the right way to put it (see Language again)
• Is "Widespread" justified?
  • Fair, that might be overstating the case. - G
• re-arrange last sentence to start with "The Gusuku period is usually considered to have ended when ..."
  • Done. - G

Chronology

• It might help less familiar readers if the article were to start with a very brief summary of the geographical context, e.g. that the Ryukyus are an island arc between Kyushu and Taiwan, that they're divided into northern (Ōsumi), central and southern (Sakishima), that the big islands Amami and Okinawa are in the central group, and there's a big gap between the central and southern groups. Maybe some idea of the size of the big islands too.
  • I was going to say that this works best in the next section, but then I realized that works better as the beginning of the article anyhow. Moved this around a bit. - G
• Some indication of the sources of information on the period might be useful. As I understand it, this is mainly archaeology, with a few mentions in Chinese, Korean and Japanese sources in the final century and written histories of the late part on Okinawa from the 17th century. Perhaps expand the scope of the section to scholarship or something?
• The definition in Pearson (1998) is not so much broader as later, namely 1200–1609. The shift, driven by new data in the 1990s and 2000s, is discussed at Pearson (2013) p145. This also explains how scholars initially tied the period to gusuku construction.
• Could mention the Early/Late subdivision (Pearson 2013 p146).
• "mid-Yayoi" -> "Middle Yayoi"? The dating is imprecise, but that's all the source offers.

Prehistory

• The section title isn't quite right, as the Gusuku period is also prehistory, or proto-history in the later part. Maybe "Early settlement"?
• I'm not sure about "Intermittent" and "began". The source would support saying there are modern human remains between 32 and 16 kya.
• Add BCE to end of second sentence.
  • Done. -G
• 1st para says "populate" and then "repopulation", begging the question of a gap and how long it was.
• If Sakishima are also included, maybe there should be a paragraph on their settlement history. Pearson 2013 pp40, 71–80 discusses this.
• I see that Pearson (2013) p10 answers these questions, though his dates are a bit different than Takamiya and Shinzato.
• The first sentence of the 2nd para doesn't quite work grammatically. The easiest fix is probably to split it after "did not emerge".
• Low populations are a direct consequence of carrying capacity, but this only one of four reasons advanced by Takamiya and Shinzato.
• inconsistent number between "boar" and "mammals"
• Combine the two citations of Pearson (2013) at the end of the 2nd para into one with all the pages?
• "theorized" -> "suggested" or "proposed"?
• "in lieu of" doesn't quite fit in this context. "in favor of"?
• Pearson 2013 ref for cultivation should be pp102–103, 106–108
• The statement about "lone unambiguous cultigens from the Shellmidden" seems to contradict the mention of "Agriculture" in the 800s. This is clarified on pp25–26 of Takamiya and Nakamura.

Agriculture

• Takamiya and Nakamura say 10th century for the Okinawa archipelago.
• Dropping the "Ōshima" after Amami (as done elsewhere in the article) seems more natural.
• the 2nd para says "possibly beans", but the 3rd baldly asserts "Adzuki beans"
• "at Miyako-jima" -> "on Miyako"

Trade and foreign relations

• The first paragraph jumps around a bit. Since the new ceramics from China, Kyushu and Tokunoshima are key markers of the Gusuku period, perhaps it would make sense to split it into one on ceramic and soapstone vessels and another on other trade.
• "Yayoi" -> "Yayoi period"?
• the "import ... alongside" structure doesn't quite work: restructure?
• "Korea, Thai, and Vietnamese" -> "Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese"?
• Maybe a parenthetical on Dazaifu so readers don't have to click it to find out what it is?
• "at Kikaijima" -> "on Kikai"?
• sulfur: might be more accurate to say that sulfur exported from Japan to China is likely to have originated from deposits on Iōjima. In fact, Pearson's phrasing might even suggest direct trade with China.
• "the" before "Joseon kingdom". Or maybe say "to Ming China and Joseon Korea" to assume less of the reader?
• Hyōtō Ryūkyū-koku ki: isn't there some uncertainty as to what "Ryūkyū" refers to here? Akamine doesn't say Okinawa.

Language

• This section is based on one research paper (Jarosz et al). Another source, such as Pellard 2015 (see below) might give more balance.
• It seems to be the consensus view that the Gusuku population spoke predecessors of the Ryukyuan languages. Jarosz et al dismiss the trade-creole theory quickly (pp6–7) – it doesn't seem to have any support that would justify including it. They also point out (p15) that the dates don't work for the Hayato theory.
• A proto-language is usually thought of as a formal construct obtained by working backward from contemporary languages, so one wouldn't normally talk about people speaking it. The issue here is how (and where) the Ryukyuan languages came split from the rest of Japonic. The archaeologists put forward the Gusuku as the only suitable migration, but the linguists thought the differences from Old Japanese implied a split early in the common era (Pellard p30). The consensus now seems to reconcile these, with an early split in Kyushu and later migration (Pellard pp30–31, Jarosz et al p18). Common Ryukyuan words borrowed from Old Japanese fit with this idea (Pellard pp22–23).

Architecture

• Delete the comma after "posts", to avoid confusion about small houses?
• Restructure the sentence about spacing so that ken is in parentheses after an equivalent English term?
• 1 m rather than 100 cm?
• Rearrange the "hearths" sentence to make the houses the subject, to match the second clause?

Gusuku

• "placed" -> "established" or "built"? Maybe move the time to the front of the sentence to improve the flow?
• Perhaps the first sentence of the 2nd para belongs with the first para, so it is clear which island is referred to. If that makes the 1st para too long, it could be split before the first gusuku sentence.
• I would drop the Ōshima after Amami.
• Use hectares instead of 10,000s of m^2?

Society and governance + Emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom

• While the earlier part of the article is mostly based on archaeological findings, the last two sections are based on the 17th century Chūzan Seikan, to some extent correlated with contemporary foreign sources and archaeological information (Pearson 2013 pp234–235 has a bit on that). It would be useful to identify the primary sources here. Smits 2019 pp3–6 has a list (with much more detail than needed here). This would also be a suitable point to talk about Shunten in connection with the parts of the Chūzan Seikan being discounted.
• Akimine says the aji emerged and began building gusuku in the early Gusuku, but other authors say that gusuku building started in the mid 13th century. Akimine is pitched at a general audience and doesn't discuss what this is based on.
• Smits 2019 chapters 4 and 5 tends to be a bit more cautious with the received histories.
• In "limits the understanding of state and religion" I think understanding of the relationship between state and religion is meant.
• "based after" -> "based on"?
• Specify that Shun was a Chinese legendary emperor?
• The image is said to be public domain because it is old, which is certainly true of the original painting, but we don't know the source of this version. Perhaps it's a scan from a more recent book, which could be a problem. In any case, an artist's impression from three centuries after the subject's reign isn't terribly informative. (And do we have any evidence apart from the Commons entry that this is supposed to represent him?) Perhaps a map of Sanzan Okinawa would be more helpful?
• "in a common symbolic end date to the Gusuku period" might be misunderstood as saying the period existed at that time. Rephrase?

Bibliography

• alphabetical order?
  • I like to sort my bibliographies by date. MOS:NOTES doesn't really give specific guidance on how to arrange them, so it's ultimately up to personal preference as long it's consistent. - G
    • Fair enough – it's not a GA criterion. (But most external style guides recommend it, because it makes it easier to find refs.)

Possible extra refs:

• Pellard, Thomas (2015). "The linguistic archeology of the Ryukyu Islands". In Heinrich, Patrick; Miyara, Shinsho; Shimoji, Michinori (eds.). Handbook of the Ryukyuan languages: History, structure, and use. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 13–37. doi:10.1515/9781614511151.13. ISBN 978-1-61451-161-8. S2CID 54004881.
• Smits, Gregory (2019). Maritime Ryukyu, 1050–1650. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-7709-5. JSTOR j.ctvsrfmz.

Kanguole 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a nice piece of work about an important slice of history.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I've made several stylistic suggestions, but none of these a showstoppers.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have checked each of the references, and found that they support the text except for a few minor glitches listed above.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is not a huge topic, and it is well covered here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I have some quibbles about the Language section. The last two sections take the transmitted history literally, which some scholars don't.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Extremely stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are free and appropriately captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Most of my comments by section are suggestions; only a few of them impact on GA criteria.

Kanguole 08:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you very much for all this! It might take me a couple days to implement these changes, but this is all extremely helpful. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Have been taking notes on the Smits source in preparation to add it to the article. Cannot believe I missed this source during my initial research! I will be adding a lot to the article from it, so it might need another round of prose checks once I'm done with that. Thank you very much for your help and patience. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: any news on this? Kanguole 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for the delays! I've been distracted by various other stuff. I'm still working on stuff including new sourcing at User:Generalissima/Gusuku period, and will try to finish it up this weekend. My apologies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima, reminder ping. (I'm just checking up on the old holds list.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Kanguole, it has been nearly three months since Generalissima was going to finish things up during the weekend, and their only edit since was to fix a single typo on 16 May. Under the circumstances, such a long hold is excessive. As a first time reviewer, you may not be aware of how to deal with this situation. You can certainly give another few days if you wish (seven days is typical for Wikipedia), but closing the review as unsuccessful is certainly appropriate under the circumstances. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset User:Kanguole Please, I do intend to get back to this. Kanguole is an exceptionally skilled reviewer and I do not think I could have anyone more suited to review this. I would like a little more time to get back to this and make the changes requested. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: How long do you need? Kanguole 09:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have everything done within the next week. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, that's great. Kanguole 17:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been another two weeks, and nothing. In that time, Generalissima has made in the neighborhood of 400 edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's also now four months since this section of discussion started, and over three since the last article edit. Kanguole, it's time to close this; the nomination clearly isn't a priority for Generalissima. A new nomination can be opened once all the edits have eventually been made. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I very much struggle to see how this being delayed a few days impacts you or the project at large. Closing it is purely a bureaucratic move, as this is a high priority for me and I intend to get back to it as soon as I am reasonably able — and I am unsure what putting it back into the queue and getting a different reviewer would accomplish in this situation.Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima, the fact that this has been delayed for months—not merely a few days—adds to the overall backlog at GAN. It also isn't fair to your reviewer. You seem to be overbooked in a major way: Talk:Grande Ronde River/GA1 is a review you opened back in May and still haven't returned to; I'm frankly astounded that you decided to open another review last week when you already have one that has been sitting around for over three months. Again, unfair to the nominator who had every reason to expect a prompt review. (Not sure what's going on with the one you're reviewing for Kanguole.) At some point soon, you might want to take a look at your commitments and figure out how to meet them without getting overbooked: when you say "I should have something done within the next week", that's a commitment to your reviewer, and you're now kicking the can way down the road again: "as soon as I am reasonably able". Try now. Or accept that at some point, the decision is going to be taken out of your hand. I've seen it happen with opened and unstarted reviews, too, especially when there's a GAN backlog drive on the horizon. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I trust that reviewers and reviewees have the ability to self-advocate in this sorts of situations if it proves to be a hassle for them. I don't know why you have decided to make these calls on behalf of others, but I can assure you that I will be finished with my work this weekend. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Any news? Kanguole 16:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Okay, should be good now! A thousand apologies for the delays; I had a lot of reading. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

After revisions

Very good stuff – I think this is almost done. I have some faily minor comments:

Lead

• 1st para: "alternatively" when there only seems to one option. Also repetition of "migrants".
• 2nd para: seems to suggest Kamuiyaki ware was exported. Also redundant "proliferated in large numbers".

Background

• I was initally puzzled by "what would become the Ryukyus" before I remembered that sea levels were so much lower then.
• Shellmound/midden is northern and central Ryukyus only (Sakishima is different and less certain – Pearson 2013 pp71–80) Maybe just drop "of the Ryukyus" in the last sentence.

Language and demography

• "assimilated or disappeared" is an awkward mix of transitive and intransitive verbs.

Emergence

• "Gusuku site" is a bit confusing here, given the name of the article and the chronology already explained. Pearson 2013 p158 explains that here it's a place name rather than a reference to a castle. Perhaps an explanatory note to this effect?
• originating on Kikaijima is said twice

Gusuku

• The term wokou first appears here. Maybe "pirate" would do?

Society and governance

• Perhaps the second paragraph belongs in the "Traditional historiography" section, which also mentions Shunten.

Trade and foreign relations

• Add "via Japan" to the Sulfur sentence (per the Pearson citation)?

Wukou

• Again wukou is used here as if we should know what it means – perhaps justrejig the first sentence a bit.

Emergence of the Ryukyu Kingdom

• Can we be sure that the image is intended to be Shō Shin?

Historiography

• I think we can drop the "mainly" in the first sentence.
• The Rekidai Hōan is described as a "domestic compilation", but as later stated it was compiled by Chinese residents (Smits 2019 p5). The Smits 2019 ref should be pages 1–6. (I don't have access to Smits 2024, but presumably he hasn't changed on that.)
• I think the kanji and kana interfere with the flow here, and they are in the linked articles anyway.
• I'm still a bit bothered by the Emergence presenting a coherent narrative before we find out in the Historiography section how thin the sources are. I'm not sure how to fix that – I guess you think that putting the Historiography section near the front would break the flow.

That's all, I think. Kanguole 21:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I made all the fixes requested; and the Shō Shin image is from a series of portraits of the Ryukyuan kings by Shō Genko in the 1790s; it seems likely for him to be included in that series. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

All of my concerns are addressed. Congratulations on another fine piece of work! Kanguole 23:11, 3 September 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.