Wikipedia

Talk:Korean creation narratives/GA1

< Talk:Korean creation narratives
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Chipmunkdavis in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago32 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


From an initial quick read this is a very interesting article. The material is quite dense, so I suspect it may require some time to go through it carefully. Given the note of a potentially short timeframe to access certain sources, let me know if there are any sections/topics that should be dealt with sooner rather than later. (Hopefully the sources are still available for the moment.)

I do have some broad initial comments. The overall narratives are described in the present tense as ongoing oral literature. However, if they have been written down and thus preserved into a fixed form, that would imply that they are no longer oral literature. This of course may only apply to the mainland narratives, as it reads as if the Jeju narrative(s) continue to be passed orally. Related to that last point is that the text varies between describing the Cheonji-wang bon-puri as a single narrative and as a group of narratives. There perhaps could also be a bit more consistency in the names of different aspects of the narratives. In the second paragraph of the lead, individual stories are described as "elements", "episodes", and "myths". Similar situations occur in other areas of the text. If there is a meaning behind this variation, that is unclear to me.

There's some room to add to the lead if needed. Currently the sections Relationship to Buddhism and Cross-cultural connections get only brief tangential mentions. I'm also unclear as to why the two particular examples of shared elements were chosen. As a final initial comment, I don't currently fully grasp what the Jeseok bon-puri is, and how it as a narrative can be both related to the various creation narratives and yet have three separate narratives that can be extracted from within it. I may get a better grasp upon rereading the whole article, but that's my current impression. CMD (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for taking this!
The overall narratives are described in the present tense as ongoing oral literature. However, if they have been written down and thus preserved into a fixed form, that would imply that they are no longer oral literature. Being oral literature is intrinsic to the nature of the Korean shamanic narratives, even if they're "dead" and no longer ritually performed. I'd say the present tense is justified because one of the two significant traditions (Cheonji-wang bon-puri) is alive, and a lead sentence like "Korean creation narratives refer to works of oral literature that are or were formerly recited..." seems a bit pedantic to me, especially when the very next sentence explains that the mainalnd narratives only exist in transcribed forms now.
In any case, when the rewrite of the "Korean mythology" article here is done, which should be within the next week, the first sentence would be changed to "Korean creation narratives are shamanic narratives which recount the mythological beginnings of the universe" with a link to the Korean mythology article's section on the shamanic mythology, which should solve the issue.
the text varies between describing the Cheonji-wang bon-puri as a single narrative and as a group of narratives The wording gets clunky because of the oral nature of the corpus, but the Cheonji-wang bon-puri is a group of narratives/stories that share the main narrative/story. I will clear this up.
In the second paragraph of the lead, individual stories are described as "elements", "episodes", and "myths". Similar situations occur in other areas of the text. If there is a meaning behind this variation, that is unclear to me. There is no meaning behind this variation, they all mean what structuralist scholars would call mythemes. In the early sandbox versions of this article I had "element" for everything, but I thought the repetition made for a very grating prose which is why it uses all three terms. If you think it'll confuse readers, I can change it back.
There's some room to add to the lead if needed. Currently the sections Relationship to Buddhism and Cross-cultural connections get only brief tangential mentions. I was a bit wary of expanding the lead to five paragraphs because the article is already on the long side, but I'll add a new paragraph on these two sections.
I don't currently fully grasp what the Jeseok bon-puri is, and how it as a narrative can be both related to the various creation narratives and yet have three separate narratives that can be extracted from within it. The Jeseok bon-puri is a narrative found throughout Korean shamanism, whose plot is as summarized in the first paragraph of the relevant section. In the mainland (except the Siru-mal), the creation narrative is directly followed by the Jeseok bon-puri, because the Buddhist priest who impregnates the heroine of the Jeseok bon-puri is the same god as the creator god Seokga. In Jeju and the Siru-mal, the creation narrative and the Jeseok bon-puri coexist as unrelated stories, but the two stories have close structural parallels, i.e. both stories are basically about a male figure from the sky impregnating an earthly woman, and the resulting twins/triplets becoming gods after seeking out their father.
Could you explain a bit more about what you found confusing about the current description?
Cheers,--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Chipmunkdavis: I've added a new lead paragraph for Buddhism and cross-cultural connections, explained (in the "Shared elements" section) why the flower contest and doubled sun and moon get special attention in the lead, and made the article consistently use "version" for a single transcribed version of the Cheonji-wang bon-puri and "narrative" for sentences that discuss trends in the twenty versions grouped together. Tell me if there's anything more to fix on the reread.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Please go ahead and change the article now, wikilinks can be added at a later date but if you have better wording in mind you shouldn't wait on other articles.
  • It may be relevant to think about how it will be unclear to most English speakers whether Cheonji-wang bon-puri is a single or a plural term. Its first introduction in the lead is "Cheonji-wang bon-puri of southern Jeju Island, which continues to be performed in its ritual context today", which makes it seem a singular. There are no other indications in the lead (including the map) that there are multiple, despite there being enough to hint at regional variations within Jeju.
  • I understand the desire to reduce monotony in text. I would understand episode and element actually, as both imply they are parts, but I would avoid using "myth", as myth could reasonably be understood as a whole in its own, whereas here it is presented as part of a larger narrative. (Presumably this is why the term mytheme is used instead of myth.)
  • The article is indeed long! I don't know if they needed their own paragraph, I was thinking more brief mentions attached to other paragraphs, but the new formulation works. I read the 3rd and 4th paragraphs as essentially the same paragraph really.
  • On the Jeseok bon-puri, I don't understand how it leads to the Eastern Creation narratives. The paragraph of the plot does not seem to contain a flower contest, the cheating God spreading Buddhism, or many other of the various elements described throughout the article. The Jeseok bon-puri is also presented as a singular hymn, while the text seems to describe it as having a large amount of variations. The Jeseok bon-puri section is also the only place in this article with a reference to "northeastern Korea". Your explanation on this talkpage suggests that on the mainland the Jeseok bon-puri is an inherently attached narrative that immediately follows the creation narratives (outside of Jeju), but I don't get that impression from the article text. CMD (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Chipmunkdavis:
  • The first sentence has been changed, sidestepping the issue of whether dead oral literature is still oral literature.
  • The lead now makes it clear that the Cheonji-wang bon-puri will be defined in this article as a single narrative with multiple versions.
  • All references to "myth" where it was synonymous with "episode" or "element" were removed, leaving only usages such as "creation myth" (synonymous with "creation narrative") or "flower contest myth" (preserved because outside of Korea, the flower contest is its own origin myth of evil and not part of a longer creation myth).
  • Information on how the Jeseok bon-puri ties into the creation narrative has been added in the "Jeseok bon-puri" section for all five relevant narratives. "Northeastern" has been reworded to "northern and eastern"; they specifically refer to the "northern" and "East Coast-Gyeongsang" parts of this map, although that's obviously excessive detail for this article.
  • Thanks for the comments, they were really helpful.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sources and ritual context
  • I'm not sure what the best change would be, but I feel the short paragraph beginning "Korean creation narratives are divided..." could be reworded. It's not explicit exactly whey they are divided. I assume that the division is caused by classification by scholars based on similarities/differences? The current wording puts all the emphasis for difference on the Jejeu narratives. Perhaps something like "The eight mainland narratives, transcribed..., show influences from Buddhism. The twenty known variants..., still performed in its (their?) ritual context...have the most complete...etc.".
  • Clarified to mention that they are divided primarily on a geographic basis rather than based on content; if the latter were the case, Siru-mal should be aligned with Cheonji-wang bon-puri (henceforth CB) against the other seven mainland narratives. Also added that Siru-mal is similar to CB directly in the first section, although this information was already in the "Connection to the Jeseok bon-puri" section. Removed the statement that the CB was the least affected by Buddhism, which was already stated in the "Relationship to Buddhism" section.
  • Can an internal wiklink be put on the first instance of Jeseok bon-puri under Mainland Narratives? Presumably one day there might be an actual article to link to, but for the moment I think an internal link may be a good idea.
  • Done.
  • "Found" may not be the right word. Some are "preserved"? Some "survive as"?
  • Fixed.
  • A small contextualisation of the divide between the mainland narratives should be included here, perhaps just an adjectival word or two, to clarify it's not just by geography.
  • The information on the subdivision of mainland narratives was moved a little up, and contextual information was added on why scholars differentiate between the three.
  • I assume "It is the oldest known creation narrative" refers to the oldest recorded. It should be reworded, as it may imply the other narratives were created later.
  • Done.
  • I note that in the analysis section later on the line "In both the Seng-gut and Kim's Changse-ga, one of Seokga's first acts" implies those two are the most similar. I note both are from Hamhŭng, although this is not explicitly called out. Do sources discuss the similarity being based on shared origin? (Another link is mentioned in Relationship to Buddhism.)
  • Sources discuss this, done.
  • "Division of Korea" and "the Division" should probably use a lower-case d.
  • Done.
  • "beginning with the creation narrative" may better read as "beginning with a creation narrative", since it is different to those previously mentioned. I also don't think "that is the focus of this article" is necessary text!
  • Done, and true on the last bit!
  • Should "Eastern narratives are found in truncated form as part of the Jeseok bon-puri" be better written as "as part of various Jesero bon-puri" or similar?
  • Fixed to "versions of the Jeseok bon-puri," extending the convention in the article that the CB is referred to as one narrative in multiple versions.
  • Is there nothing to say about the other two Eastern narratives? What makes Danggeum-agi incomplete? (What makes Sunsan-chugwon, or any other narrative, "complete"?)
  • The incomplete/complete thing has been removed entirely. The distinction was originally that Sunsan-chugwon directly discusses both the flower contest and the doubled sun and moon, while the other two don't (one doesn't mention the doubled sun and moon at all, and the other doesn't describe it directly, only in quoted speech). But this seemed unnecessary to mention here.
  • Is Danggeum-agi a proper name? "Title meaning: Danggeum-agi" will not clarify much for non-Korean speakers.
  • Danggeum-agi is the heroine of the Jeseok bon-puri, as discussed in the section on the JB.
  • @Chipmunkdavis: I've added a bracketed term saying that it's the name of a goddess.
  • Why are "Dodang-gut", "Chogam-je", and "Bepo-doeop-chim" not italicised like similar Korean words?
  • Only the titles of creation narratives are italicized. Dodang-gut, Chogam-je, and Bepo-doeop-chim are all proper nouns that are the names of rituals, which is why they aren't italicized.
  • In "Great Gut," the name of the ritual is being translated into English. Gut is therefore used here as a common noun from a foreign language, which is why it's italicized like the other instances where it's a common noun. On the other hand, Dodang-gut is a single untranslated proper noun which is not the title of a work, which is why it's not capitalized. If "Great Gut" was left untranslated as Keun-gut, I wouldn't have italicized it.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The sentence beginning "While the rituals were still being continued into the 1980s" would fit better as the last line in the next paragraph.
  • Done, and reworded for smoother prose.
  • The "sacred history" wikilink should be removed, inapplicable. I would also suggest "sacred history" is the wrong phrase, as if it continues to be performed it is not history. Sacred ritual?
  • "Sacred history" was used in this definition of "history that is retold with the aim of instilling religious faith and which may or may not be founded on fact," which is a not uncommon term in anthropology. But since Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on this definition and it could be confusing, as you pointed out, I reworded it.
  • How is the universe created after heaven and earth already exist? What does universe mean in this context?
  • Fixed to "rivers, mountains, and other natural entities."
Side notes

I would be interested in the possibility of including some more information on the research (historiography?) of this topic. There are some notes about different opinions, such as those in the Jeju island shamanism section, but the article raises various further questions. These include why the various creation narratives were transcribed on the recorded dates, and why some remained unknown to academia. The hamhung connection I noted above is another one. A brief mention of when/why/how shamanism died out on the mainland (mentioned only for the Siru-mal) would add context, as would perhaps any speculation on narratives that went unrecorded and were thus lost.

I have also been thinking about the structure of the article. A lot of information in the Sources and ritual context section is more understandable from context found later in the article, so it may be better later. On the other hand, I can see why you have placed this section first, as it provides overall context and an introduction to the topic. Not definitively recommending any change, just something to further consider. CMD (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chipmunkdavis:
I would be interested in the possibility of including some more information on the research (historiography?) of this topic. There are some notes about different opinions, such as those in the Jeju island shamanism section, but the article raises various further questions. These include why the various creation narratives were transcribed on the recorded dates, and why some remained unknown to academia.
The different dates are just that these are the dates when the relevant shamans were contacted by the ethnologists, so there isn't much more meaning to it. Jeon's Changse-ga remained unknown to academia because its transcriber, Son Jin-tae, did not publish it during his lifetime; he couldn't get around to doing so before he was abducted by North Korea in 1950 and disappeared. The notebook with the transcribed hymn was then rediscovered coincidentally in the 1990s. This didn't seem all that relevant, though, so I've just removed the detail about it being largely unknown.
IA brief mention of when/why/how shamanism died out on the mainland (mentioned only for the Siru-mal) would add context, as would perhaps any speculation on narratives that went unrecorded and were thus lost.
Added.
I have also been thinking about the structure of the article.
I agree, it's hard to find a structure for the article that has no drawbacks. I think that starting with the sources/ritual purposes section is still the best overall introduction, especially since there isn't really another place for this section to be in. Kim Heonsun's seminal work on Korean creation narratives (cited as Kim H. 1994 throughout the article) starts with the sources as well.
--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Shared elements
  • There's probably no need to say "scholars have identified"
  • Removed.
  • gawp is italicised here, referring back to my previous note.
  • My idea is that it's used as a common noun here, as with gut. Words like gut and gawp are common nouns in Korean as well, while words like Dodang-gut or Cheonji-wang aren't.
  • Somewhat unrelated to the article, but is gawp a Jeju-specific pronunciation/transliteration? It doesn't sound like standard Korean. And is the dot letter in the Wikitictionary entry Jeju-specific?
  • Yes, gawp is in Jeju language. Jeju has no standard romanization (beyond Yale, which is much more of a hassle than it's worth), but I'm using the one used in the Jeju language article and the 2019 University of Hawai'i monograph on Jeju, which writes /ɔ/ (written by the dot latter and absent in mainland Korean) as aw.
  • To be clear, in a single narrative multiple cleaving processes all contribute to the same end?
  • Yes. Do you think it could be clearer?
  • I've added "successive," which I think should make it clearer that multiple processes are at work.
  • The text states the cosmic giant is "is another similarity between northern and Jeju narratives", but I'm unclear what the first similarity between them was.
  • The first similarity was that "the Jeju hymns agree with the Changse-ga that heaven and earth were originally fused."
  • There is some redundnacy between the first and third Giant paragraphs where they both deal with Pangu.
  • Redundancy has been removed by centralizing the discussion about Pangu into the third paragraph.
  • The paragraph about the twins and their flowers is the first place in the article to mention clandestine swapping, rather than simple stealing. Did the other narratives also include swapping? That would make more sense to me.
  • In the mainland narratives, Seokga has to steal the flower because he fails to grow any flower. In Jeju, Sobyeol-wang does manage to grow a flower, but it's a "black and withering flower" or, in one version, "a demonic flower of evil thought and ruin and destruction." Hence it's a matter of swapping. This was why "better" was in parentheses, but the fact that Seokga failed to grow a flower is now clearly stated in the article.
  • In the statement "Unlike in the Changse-ga" I think it should still be clarified as "Jeon's Changse-ga", for consistency and ensured clarity.
  • Done.
  • What does "map" mean in the "map of the Son of Heaven"?
  • None of the sources explained this.
  • Does "In southwestern Korea" mean just the Siru-mal?
  • As discussed later on, the Siru-mal coexists with the Jeseok bon-puri as separate myths. The fusion is a characteristic of only the three eastern and two of the northern narratives, not the Siru-mal. "Southwestern" here refers to west-central and Jeolla in this map, and is talking just about the Jeseok bon-puri instead of the creation myths.
  • Instead of "the narrative is a pre-Buddhist myth" something like "the narrative stems from a pre-Buddhist myth" would be better wording.
  • Done.
  • In the Northern and Eastern narratives, does Danggeum-agi also become a god?
  • She becomes a god (goddess of childbirth) in only the northern and eastern narratives. Until a few hours ago the article wrongly said the opposite, that she becomes a goddess in the southwestern versions, but this has since been fixed.
  • "northwestern" should be replaced in "the northwestern Jeseok bon-puri", per previous discussion.
  • Fixed.
  • What are "the southern creation narratives"? I can't quite parse the meaning of that paragraph at the moment.
  • These are referring to the Siru-mal and the CB as a single group, but I've reworded this.
  • @Chipmunkdavis: In all versions of the Jeseok bon-puri, the priest/father/sky god remains the ultimate source of divine authority, and Danggeum-aegi and the children become gods only at his pleasure. In the Siru-mal, it's not clear if the father figure Dang-chilseong is involved in the twins becoming kings, and in one CB version, the twins openly break their father's throne and go about doing everything on their own. So the father in the latter two narratives is left with much less authority than the Jeseok bon-puri's priest, which is what's being said. The paragraph has been reworded along these lines, so hopefully it's clearer now.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • So authority is "transferred" because the father has left the picture? I'm still not fully sure that's what is conveyed in the text. To me that sounds less like a transfer than an assumption, or a "passing", of authority, as transfer to me implies an active change rather than something which reads as simply having happened due to circumstances. This may however be my own semantics, and I don't have access to the sources, so if you feel it is clear, then I would be happy with the wording as is. CMD (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

CMD (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, these are all good points you're making.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I can't quite parse the meaning of that paragraph at the moment. Hopefully it's clearer now, I've spelled out what the generational transfer of power means in the Jeseok bon-puri.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Relationship to Buddhism
  • Why are the Korean names an anathema to Buddhist orthodoxy?
  • Because the name of the founder of Buddhism is given to a god responsible for human suffering, and because Maitreya is not supposed to be a creator but a Buddha of the very distant future. I reworded the sentence "The trickster usurper is named Seokga, the Korean pronunciation of Shakyamuni: the historical Buddha and the founder of the religion" to "The usurper god responsible for suffering is named Seokga, the Korean pronunciation of Shakyamuni: the historical Buddha and the very founder of the religion," which hopefully clarifies this.
  • I guessed as much, but my concern is that understanding this requires a background knowledge of Buddhism that many readers may not have. Would sources support a more plain and explanatory wording, such as "those names imply a rejection of Buddhism" or "those names suggest a rejection of Buddhist ideas"? CMD (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Rejection" is too strong per the sources, but I have reworded it to "strikingly different from Buddhist orthodoxy," which should be clearer than "anathema."
Northern narratives
  • The sentence "Only the northern narratives explain the means by which humanity was created, though they do not agree" might be better integrated into the second paragraph which also deals with humanity, and specifically names two northern narratives (I assume the other two also do not explain?).
  • That first paragraph serves to summarize all the listed similarities in the northern narratives, which is why it's headed by the thesis sentence "The four northern narratives share a number of commonalities not found elsewhere in Korea."
So the sentence does belong there; the order of elements in the first paragraph follows the order of paragraphs in the rest of the section.
The paragraph serves the same role as the one-paragraph summary of the CB in the "Common elements in Cheonji-wang bon-puri versions" section, but because the northern narratives don't have a clear plotline—it's more "Mireuk does this, then does this, then does this, and then Seokga does this..."—the summary admittedly looks less like a summary.
  • My impression from the text is that only 2 of the 4 northern narratives explain humanity, so I don't see how it fits as a commonality among all northern narratives the way the rest of that opening paragraph does. This contrasts with your writing of the deer and desecration sentence, which specifically names two (the same two at that). Perhaps the issue is that I don't feel it is clear that the opening paragraph is written chronologically, possibly related to your pointing out of the plotline issue. CMD (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I've reworded the relevant sentence to "Only the Seng-gut and im's Changse-ga, both northern narratives, explain the precise means by which humanity was created," which is in line with the final sentence on the deer.
  • Perhaps the issue is that I don't feel it is clear that the opening paragraph is written chronologically I have reworded the first paragraph of the "Common elements in the northern narratives" section to make the chronological order of elements clearer.
  • The human creation paragraph seems out of place as it is placed between paragraphs both discussing the competitions.
  • See above, the first paragraph is a summary of the entire section.
  • How does midsummer include the beginning of spring?
  • Seokga invokes the beginning of spring, using his divine powers to make the midsummer river be the way it is in early spring. Unfortunately rivers are thawing by early spring, which is why he loses the duel.
  • Perhaps! But it's mythology, after all, so it could be anything else. The primary source was very cursory on this.
  • How can you cook a deer if it is already ash?
  • The secondary sources do not explain this (no secondary source has ever done a line-by-line interpretation of the Seng-gut, which also explains the inexplicable "map of the Son of Heaven" we discussed above), although I suspect that "ashes" here means "charred." But this is OR.
Cheonji-wang bon-puri
  • I would suggest "versions of Cheonji-wang bon-puri" instead of "Cheonji-wang bon-puri versions".
  • Used "versions of the narrative" to not make the content box too wide.
  • "This makes his head unbearably [painful?]"
  • The verb "hurt" was missing, fixed.
  • What is the relationship of the "great mother" to the reenactment of birth and infancy? And who is the great mother?
  • The twins going in and out of the petticoat is a reenactment of their birth. As for the "great mother," who she is is very unclear and there is no secondary source even speculating on this. At least there wasn't as of 2014, since Shin Y. 2014b explicitly states that she is the first person to examine this episode and she ignores the great mother entirely, and I'm not aware of any new scholarship on the subject in the past six years.
Contextually the "great mother" should be Chongmyeong-buin, who gave birth to the twins, but none of the sources state this. To make this even more puzzling, "great mother" usually means "aunt" in Korean, but no sister of Cheonji-wang is ever mentioned.
  • "first introduced metalworking to the island in the early first millennium" No need for the first first.
  • Fixed.
  • "Choi Won-oh is more attuned" might be better rewrittn as "Choi Won-oh's interpretation is more in line with" or similar.
  • Changed to "interpretation focuses more on..."
Cross-cultural connections
  • There are five shared elements in the Shared Elements section, why do two of them become "the two specific elements" here?
They are the two elements mentioned as having "received especial scholarly attention." I referred to them as "specific elements" because the intervention of a giant, a strange primordial universe, or the splitting of heaven and earth are very common in mythologies worldwide and have probably been invented independently several times, while the flower contest and the doubled sun and moon are specific enough that there's likely a historical connection. If I remember correctly, the idea came from Ho 1964, who makes this point about superfluous suns in Taiwanese aboriginal mythology (i.e. that it's far too specific a notion to be unconnected to the Chinese myth of nine moons).
Also, potential Chinese links for the creation and the giant were already discussed in the "Shared elements" section.
Would you prefer if I reworded the sentence?
  • I think a small adjustment to convey the regional focus would be helpful, and removing the "the". Eg. "...for cross-cultural connections for two specific episodes attested throughout Korea that are thought to have a single origin within East Asia:..." CMD (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The reason I was a bit wary about removing "the" is because Chinese parallels have been found for the giant and the division of heaven and earth, and if the article is removed the text implies that these are the only two elements that scholars have looked at cross-culturally. In the end I just got rid of that first sentence entirely, and I don't think the section suffered that much for it.
Images
  • I believe that the images you create should note in their description the base image you modified to create your own image, if applicable. (Currently done for the flower context map, but not the lead map.)
  • Added base image.
  • It would be better practice to remove text from images where possible, and leave that information for captions.
  • I actually prefer maps to stand on their own without the need for captions, because sometimes I find it better to link to maps independent of the accompanying article.
  • Well it's not going to affect this GAN either way, but I suggest at the very least copying the caption in full into the Wikicommons image description, including the colours. CMD (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It is best not to rely on colours (alone) to convey information where alternatives are possible.
  • True, but isn't red-blue colorblindness fairly uncommon? I also couldn't find a better alternative within my limited image-editing skills, since different shapes were hard to distinguish and outlines were already taken.
  • It's an WP:ACCESS issue regardless of how rare it is. You could combine shapes and colour perhaps. As above, this is beyond GACR, so there's no call for an immediate solution, but I thought it worth noting for thoroughness. CMD (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I will do this at some point.
  • I don't fully understand the Chogam-je diagram, in how the process with arrows relates to the numbered order.
  • The numbered order is the order of rituals, and the arrows are the descent of the gods, which occurs between Gunmun yeollim and Ori-jeong. I have added a parenthetical statement that hopefully clarifies this.
  • It does help. I'm not convinced in the current form that the image conveys the idea better than text would, although I can see the idea. Perhaps the first three steps could be moved to the top left, the title box to the bottom left, and the first two circles shifted right to accomodate this, which would put the diagram in a more traditional z-pattern. CMD (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Other comments
  • I refer back to my earlier comment stating there may be room to input some information of the study of these myths. Historiography (or whatever the correct equivalent term is) is well-included in the current article. The Waida source for example discusses how scholarship of the Ryuku legends expanded greatly past 1972, which is the sort of information that may add more context to how information in this article was discovered, and be a place for information such as the one narrative being unknown until 1994 which I find interesting but as you say is not directly relevant to the text it was within. You have something similar in your sandbox for Korean mythology under Introduction. I would find it especially interesting for this particular topic as it covers interlinked historic and living rituals.
  • A paragraph on historiography has been added to the "Sources and ritual context" article, including a mention of Kim Heonsun's monograph, the article's most important source. The tidbit about Jeon's narrative was also brought back in this more relevant paragraph.
  • Related to the above point, some additional information on how these narratives are transmitted would be useful. The information on Yi Yong-u implies information is passed down within a certain 'class' of people, as does the testimony of Kim Ssang-dori. The fact that current study of the living Jeju rituals is based on sporadic recordings also suggests that the narratives continue to be passed on as oral literature, in some form that isn't widely accessible. It also leaves open the question as to whether differences in the recorded Jeju narratives are geographical or temporal.

CMD (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • A sentence has been added about training in the first paragraph of the "Sources and ritual context" section, which should clarify the information on both Yi and Kim.
  • It also leaves open the question as to whether differences in the recorded Jeju narratives are geographical or temporal. This was not discussed in depth in any of the sources, although I'm a little curious myself. In the case of the Jeseok bon-puri some scholars have claimed that the storyline is becoming increasingly coherent because worshippers care more about logical inconsistencies and such, but I haven't heard of any such thing for the CB.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Closing

1. Well written?:   Pass
2. Factually accurate?:   Pass
3. Broad in coverage?:   Pass
4. Neutral point of view?:   Pass
5. Article stability?:   Pass
6. Images?:   Pass
An excellent article, and many of my questions seem unanswerable in current sources, which suggests the content is very thorough. Exceeds basic GAN requirements. CMD (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_creation_narratives/GA1&oldid=965053477"