Talk:Gyōji/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

Reviewer: Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 01:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As promised in Midnight's Discord, I'll take this and tokoyama; I won't commit to rikishi yet until I can be sure I have the time. Apologies because I wanted to wait a bit for the GAN backlog drive before starting these! Normally I do reviews in a sandbox and post the whole thing when it's ready, but I am going to try posting here as I go instead (and I may have a lot to say); if there are very minor issues like typos and formatting I will fix them as I'm reading. It may take a couple weeks as my university's spring break doesn't start until March 10. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment. Hi Adam, thanks for the initiative! To be completely transparent, Bluecrystal and I share the same interest in sumo and communicate on it via a Discord server. Beyond that, we don't know each other. I'd also like to mention that the development of this article and its nomination for GA status was inspired by a discord server user, the late Kimura Moosesuke. Moose was a great fan of gyoji works and his threads on the subject were particularly helpful in reorganizing parts of the article. However, we were saddened to learn the passing of Moose in September 2023. I therefore imagine that this version of the article is partly dedicated to him. - OtharLuin (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Preliminary thoughts

• The lists of current tate-gyōji and san'yaku-gyōji seem unnecessary, and are also mostly unreferenced.

I've added an updated source, I think the list doesn't hurt, it echoes the heya pages. Would it be possible for us to keep the list?

It's not a very big deal but it does seem out of place the way it's formatted now.

• The third man on the ring seems like a tonally weird section name, something like just As a match referee or something is better.

 Done Went for "Refereeing a match"

• The Gyoji lexicon section is an unnecessarily detailed listing with some unencyclopedic language too. I would suggest this is condensed and rewritten in prose. Not all shouts need to be named here.

The original idea was to answer the frequent questions related to what the gyoji says in the ring. As much as I like the list, if it really were to be deemed useless then I'd opt to delete it. Rephrasing it in prose wouldn't go well because I rely too much on a single source and have little idea how to phrase it. In this case, it's best to add the source to External links.

I would remove it and support the external link.

 Done

• Could just delete Controversy section. Maybe it can be expanded, I think there is information missing about controversial decisions and the like.

I'd prefer to keep it as there are still some serious elements to be mentioned. When it comes to contesting decisions, the sources would be tabloids first and foremost. The sports newspapers that we rely on at WP:SUMO don't criticize referees very much. There's a kind of modesty about the subject and the few articles that do talk about it only mention the number of reversals per gyoji, for example. Not really controversies for my taste.

• Image copyrights look fine, but there's (in my opinion) more images than needed; up to your discretion if you want to keep all of them. Earwig is fine.
• I only glanced at the sources for now, but is 44 ("Sumo FanMag") reliable?

SumoFanMag is a source that is rated as viable by WP:SUMO. It was a magazine from the early days of sumo forums and was edited by expatriates in Japan. Although publication has ceased they still have an archived website

Prose

Lead

• proper running of the sports organising and matches - very awkward, reword this

 Done

• Inherited from a tradition of refereeing... - curious what you think: could this be moved to the start of the next paragraph, and the 1st + 2nd paragraphs be combined?

I simply followed the development of the article to introduce the elements in the introduction. I've reworded it, tell me what you think

• Heian period/Tensho era - for an unfamiliar reader they'd have to click both links to find out when those were, I would add some clarification such as "...the Tensho era, during the late 16th century"

I've reworded it but I'm not happy with the description for the Heian period, I find it too long (both the description and the era...)

No worries, I ended up removing that for the Heian period as it's a major period in Japan's history, but still good to clarify for more obscure time periods like Tensho era

• However, their role does not stop at simply refereeing matches - sounds like an essay tone, sort of; you could maybe just cut this first part out?

 Done

• More discreetly still - same thing as above

 Done

• the elders - minor point but it is probably better to use "toshiyori" for an unfamiliar reader

 Done

History

• with the exception of the wrestlers - has a strange connotation in English here, use a different phrase like "besides the wrestlers"
• One of them, Shiga no Seirin - one of the officials or one of the substitutes?

Cuyler does not specify. I reworded it as "an official".

• (sometimes spelled Shigano Seirin or called Shiga Seirin) - unnecessary detail

I wanted to try to avoid confusion over the spelling of the name, as when I was doing my research I ran out of sources because of the different spellings. I'll delete it if there's no interest in this article, but I think it's a shame that Shiga-no-Seirin doesn't come up more in the search algorithms.

• matches between warriors - "warriors" makes it kinda seem like they weren't just wrestlers?

Both. At the time sumo was a combat training method. It's corrected.

I suspected so, but it wasn't clear

• as we know it today - avoid this type of phrase, using "we"; I suggest "creating the gyoji refereeing function in its modern form".

 Done

• Just curious, are you working on House of Gojō too?

Yes I am! At the moment I'm just looking for sources. The article is also listed in the general articles to be created on WP:SUMO

• such as in Edo, Kyoto and Osaka - this is kinda just repeating "scattered around the country" but you could probably just say "in population centers such as Edo..." or remove it entirely

What if we kept this idea of quoting the biggest sumo centres of the time by mentioning "the largest developing in... " ?

This works well, as long as "the largest" is supported by the source

• its definitive form - "definitive" kind of has a subjective connotation, like it's an opinion. Does this just mean "current form"?

 Done

• with the use of the gunbai - just briefly clarify what this is for the reader

 Done

Career and ranking

• Seems to me like the "System of promotion" section should go before the "Ring names" section. In "Ring names" the ranks are discussed but the reader won't yet know what (for example) tate-gyoji means

I had chosen this order to follow the logical sequence of a gyoji's career: he first chooses his name (1), then moves up the hierarchy (2), which leads to changes in his costume (3). I've modified the first part without mentioning too many terms, which are explained below.

Ring names

• the name Kimura Shōnosuke was originally created - I would say "adopted" not "created" makes it more clear what this means, if I understand the sentence correctly; Nakadachi Uzaemon was the first to use that name?

 Done. You guessed correctly.

• as a prominent figure and obtained to be second - the word "obtained" doesn't make sense here, I'm not sure what this means exactly, second in what?

Rephrased. What I meant was that, over the years, he had obtained the status of second-highest referee from tournament officials.

• notably that of the 38th Kimura Shonosuke - why was this notable?

I used this term because he is the highest-ranking current referee and (according to his ja wiki page) nothing predisposed him to become a Shikimori.

• they change their first name to that of a past - this is stated as a rule, but seems to contradict the later encourage the referee to keep his name or to be given a unique one

 Done. Corrected

• when the object is pointed in one direction - very unclear. What "object", the gunbai? Which direction?

Clarified.

System of promotion

• Section feels a little long without more subheadings, could just be me though
• The first and second paragraphs seem like they could be combined

 Done

• allowed in the Sumo Association - should be Japan Sumo Association, right? If you say "Japan Sumo Association (JSA)" then following you can just shorten it to JSA

 Done

I don't see a change

Sorry, it was deleted during my rewrite. It's corrected

• New recruits do not have to meet height or weight requirements - this feels like a weird sentence, I didn't assume they would have to. I suggest combining this with the next sentence to just make it a neutral statement about small gyoji being preferred

 Done

Still seems weird to include this part. Do rikishi recruits need to? If not, why even mention this. If yes, add something like "unlike rikishi,"

• , as described, - remove

 Done

• maximum number for sekitori-ranked gyōji - maximum number of gyoji? Why is the maximum a range between 20 and 22?

Corrected. The number varies from source to source, and these sources are recent enough to cast doubt on the precise number. I have therefore mentioned the two

• integral part of the sumo spectacle - essentially copied from the quote in the lead, would recommend rephrasing

I'll just delete the sentence. It's very secondary here to what I was trying to show.

• are not the same following his rank - this is grammatically incorrect but I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean

Same as above. I deleted it.

• There is way too much detail about the gyoji salaries. Honestly just the first sentence, maybe a mention of an average salary in the modern day, that's all that should be included. This can probably be merged into another paragraph then as well.

I deleted the details on previous salaries.

• For a long period - when did it stop? who else is listed on it now? Also the location of the gyoji's names might be an unnecessary detail, but it's only one sentence so it can pass

From the beginnings of the banzuke to July 1993 only the gyoji. After that date, both gyoji and top yobidashi are on the banzuke. I've kept it short to avoid details that would be more appropriate in the banzuke article. I've reworded with source and wording from the yobidashi article, let me know what you think.

• nobori/elder-share - short explanations for these terms??

 Done. A bit long but at least its explained.

Perfect

Latest tate-gyoji/san'yaku-gyoji

• I feel like these sections should be called "current" not "latest"

 Done

Costume

• The image caption Technically a gyoji of this rank... is somewhat unencyclopedic to me. It seems like an explanation that this image is inaccurate would take too long and isn't really needed, the caption can just point out that these are the various features of a gyoji uniform.

 Done I just used the previous caption.

• flamboyant - I would opt for more neutral language here; maybe "making them uniquely visible in the ring." or something like that

This is the term used by the author sourced just after. I've reworded it as a quote to make it clearer

• hide his lack of topknot - add "with a hat" otherwise "this hat" doesn't actually reference a hat

 Done

• whimsical - again not very encyclopedic, I prefer simply "some gyoji replace the eboshi's..."

 Done

• is worth as much as - what does "worth" mean here? If they sell them on ebay?

Yes it's in term of cost. I rephrased it.

• The gyoji's costume is not just a ceremonial tool. - just remove this

 Done

• their preparedness to commit seppuku - might want to clarify that this is only symbolic ("and a symbolic preparedness" works). Well, at least I think it's only symbolic...

God, I hope so too... 😨

• from senior tate-gyōji to senior tate-gyōji - I think this can be removed from the sentence, or rephrased as "passed down to successors"

 Done

Responsibilities

Refereeing a match

• Too many bad decisions - maybe go with "overturned" instead of "bad"?

 Done

• there are no penalties - I would say delayed promotion is a penalty, perhaps "there are no direct penalties"

Yeah, bad wording from my part. I think the source is talking about salary cuts. Also rephrased because I missed some info.

• Just noticing I'm making several changes myself in this section, they're mostly grammatical.
• in the heat of the action - another somewhat unencyclopedic phrase, go with something more neutral

What about "during a particularly hectic match" ?

Religious role

• not the least of which - see previous point ^

Went for "among them are their religious responsibilities..."

• (called jungyō) - this is something not necessary for GA so I haven't pointed it out every time, but I did want to note that not every concept needs the Japanese word written in prose here (I would say it's overdone a lot in this article). I suspect FAC would require something more like takes place during regional tours. No need to change this for GAN.
• Add some explanation of what gohei is

 Done

• waving a branch...at the attendance - is this supposed to be "attendants"? If not I'm not sure what this means.

No, it's the public. I'm not sure how to rephrase it

"attendants" can mean the people in the audience. I think that's what it's supposed to be, right?

 Done

• This is a throwback - throwback feels like an informal word to me, as a native speaker, but I'm not really sure. Preferred to change to something else

 Done Went for "This practice is inherited from a time when tournaments were held outdoors"

• bit more detail in here than might be necessary (remember the focus is on the gyoji's role not the specifics of the ceremony itself). It's not really that bad right now but I'd be tempted to do something brief like ...enters the ring and recites a prayer for good weather. The assistants in turn step into the ring...

It's true that this may seem like a lot, when I was writing I wondered if it wouldn't be better in the dohyō article. But the Japanese article mentions it and after all, even if it's probably too detailed, we're on the same level of detail as the section on match refereeing. At least that's how I felt during the redaction.

• it is once again up to a - probably just better to remove this: , gyoji bring the tournament to a close with...

 Done

• is held the day - what day?

 Done

Presiding over ring-entering ceremonies

• share out their appearances - okay, it took me a bit to figure out what this meant; it's a bit awkward to express this I guess, so I've reworded the whole sentence myself, if it looks good to you.

Looks great 👍

• in ascending hierarchical order - a bit of a weird way to phrase this, it just means "in ascending rank" right?

Yup, it's rephrased

• tsuyuharai - explain

 Done

Writing the banzuke

• which will later be reproduced and actually used - what will be reproduced, the assistants?
• Since the post-war period, - which war
• logically end with the rank of yokozuna - remove logically

 Done all is done 👍

Other tasks

• located at the back of the referee's room... - the exact location of the rooms all seems like completely unnecessary detail
• future wrestler combinations - "matchups" or even "pairings" seems like a more appropriate word
• who stand not far from the ring - so... "close to" the ring
• ten gyoji relay each other - I think "rotate with each other" is better
• make his message - better way of wording this?
• Finally, - doesn't need to be present

 Done all is done 👍

Controversy

• January 2024 tournament - I suggest "January 2024 grand sumo tournament" for readers unfamiliar

 Done

• shared an off on his twitter - First of all I don't knowif this counts as an RS especially given it's in WP:BLP territory! Second, I suggest using a clearer term than "off" because this kind of sounds weird to me: "an off on" and I had no clue what an "off" was

Twitter is explicitly mentioned as being unreliable. Nevertheless, the author is a reporter who has written articles that have been used in other biographies and can be considered an expert on the subject? As for the off part, I've reworded it as "shared an informal comment..."

It's probably fine because it's a known sumo reporter, just a caution

Sources

Spotchecked this version

• 3a: - samurai-class officials, I do see on page 38 "selected from among the imperial soldiers" though? I don't if it would be obvious that those are samurai-class individuals

 Done

• 5: - SumoFanMag says "Shiganosuke", why is that not mentioned as a name?

Shiganosuke is the name of the first yokozuna. Shiga-no-Seirin (or Shigano/Shigasei... you get it) is mentionned on page 2

Oh I see, not sure how I misread it so badly. I somehow didn't notice there were more pages

• 6d: - creating the gyoji refereeing function in its modern form not explicitly stated

 DoneIt was a bit of a stretch, but Cuyler doesn't mention any further evolution of the role (other than religious) after the mention of Nobunaga. I removed it.

Not actually removed?

• 7b: - but change The licenses required to As a result, requiring licenses maybe? I think it's a slightly different meaning than the source gives

 Done

• 9b: - depending on the tradition they wish to join doesn't say anything about choice

 Done I rephrased it.

• 10a:
• 12:
• 16a:
• 21a:
• 24a: - first part of this sentence is a bit synthesis it seems, couldn't we just say "like rikishi, gyoji are affiliated with stables" or something?

I wanted to draw a parallel with another profession which is not that of a wrestler, but that is also similar in its organization. Rewording it as you suggest would remove the "directly linked to the association's HQ but spread across the stables" aspect. I've reworded it, let me know if it's ok for you.

Perfect

• 25:
• 31:
• 33/35: - supported by source but... these numbers are from 1969

True for 35 but for 33 it seems to be the case even now (according to yobidashi)

• 41: - fine, but does "and is expected..." need to be said? It's not in the source

I think JR wanted to emphasize the fact that Shonosuke wouldn't be able to hold his ground for very long. I see no reason to delete unless it's a big problem, it was specified above that gyoji retire at 65.

• 44a/b: - I feel like "however, the decision..." is at odds with the source which seems to say asakamishimo is still in use

 Done Rephrased to make it more clear I was speaking of professional sumo.

• 16c:
• 54: - wrong page?

Weird one. In my mind, I had seen the term "masterpiece" somewhere, but I can't find it anywhere...

• 63:
• 67:
• 75a:
• 28i: - I still don't really know policy on quoting translations of foreign-language sources but yeah this checks out
• 95: - AGF
• 98b:
• 103b:
• 99h:
• 107: - source for real name?

 Done It's the Sponichi article right after. It's corrected.

Will do full review in a few phases over the next week ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@OtharLuin: Sorry for another very long wait, you've had a lot of patience in this process. See the first of my prose comments above; I also made some minor edits of my own. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 06:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem :) I've modified the article, but there are still some questions to be answered here, and I had some comments that need your opinion - OtharLuin (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added some more comments and minor edits to the article. More comments after I'm done with classes, I'll try to hurry up the rest of the review in the next couple days. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, it's true that it's a long article to reread. Take your time, I don't mind :) - OtharLuin (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you've reverted pretty much all of my most recent edits to the article, which by itself isn't a bad thing, but a lot of my changes were fixes to grammar. Was this intentional? ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What did I do? That wasn't my intention, I kept a copy of the article in my sandbox for possible corrections regarding comments on the whole article, I probably to overwrote the corrected version with my copy without making a copy of the corrected version first... I'll go over the corrections again this evening, so as not to waste your time making the same corrections again... Sorry again! - OtharLuin (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I figured you were just working with an old version accidentally. I'm going to try and look at the rest of the prose now. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Finished all the prose comments. I will try to do checks for sources as soon as I can. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominator, reviewer, any further progress on this review? Ideally, it should be wrapped up pretty soon. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If I take the review of the Tokoyama article as an example, the source review is the last step. - OtharLuin (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am still alive but last week/weekend I was essentially preoccupied from morning to night. Sorry that I didn't anticipate these delays, I probably should have gotten someone else to finish the spotchecks. With that said I'll begin these today and hopefully they won't take that long. Apologies for holding up the backlog drive much longer than I thought. ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, very sorry for how long this took, especially given I took a while for the tokoyama review as well. This must set some kind of record for length of time before a finished review? Anyway the good news is there aren't really any red flags I could see while spotchecking, so when those few points are addressed I will pass the article. Your patience has been very appreciated! ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 07:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Adam, no problem with the review time, it gave me time to look into other article projects (just to give you more work... 👀). I've replied to the comments in the body of the review. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@OtharLuin: just note the note on 6d above: doesn't look like it was actually removed. I'll assume you will take care of that and I don't mind passing it right now. Thanks for your work on this article, and don't forget to nominate it for DYK (I think it hasn't been nominated before)! ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:42, 25 April 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.