327:
into
English (Genji in fact three times). What's your view with regard to referencing? They have been wikilinked to their own articles, so I'm not sure we should have bibliographical references here as well (although Genji and Pillow Book articles need to be amended to have the bibligraphical data there). Finally, as for possibly quoting passages from these sources, I'm not sure we'll find too many good ones — I've read the three works, and they generally assume the reader is already familiar with the places, and thus nice descriptive passages are rare; instead, one needs to infer from what is said in many places in the text. And quoting a passage on an arbitrary detail would be, I'm afraid, just that: arbitrary. But I'll think it over.
183:
evidence supporting the status of the latter as the most comprehensive, and sufficiently recent, English source is that the
Cambridge History of Japan (itself an approx. 3500-page 5-volume work considered to be the most authoritative English-language general history of Japan) uses it as the primary source on the Palace. In case this is not enough to convince of scarcity of the available sources, I would propose a detailed look at search results from Google Books: short (less than apage) passages discussing the palace, with no information available in addition to what is already in the cited sources. Another proposal is to go through the extensive bibliography of the Cambridge History, vol II (Heian Japan).
237:
bigger piece. I also wonder why you described the primary sources (which is great by the way) but didn't cite those or list them as references. Those and perhaps the archeological papers mentioned would make for valuable augmentation to the article. I take it you don't read
Japanese to use sources in Japanese as well? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just featured articles are the face of the project and I want to help contribute to high quality. You've clearly done great work in consulting the quality of references that you have. -
112:
270:, and got similar results as from Google Books — articles that mention the Palace in passing, or Japanese-language articles. What I found, though, is a quote from E. Seidensticker's review of McCullough and McCullough (1980) in Monumenta Nipponica 36:2 (1981) pp. 195–200, stating the following about the source used in the
430:
Thanks for the copyediting. I've done one more round of checking for typos (found a few more) as well as made consistent use of the definite article with the buildings within the palace (several were missing). As for the Ivan Morris book, I considered that, but there's really no important information
336:
I thought that might be possible that was the case with those texts. Yes, then citing them to individual statements would indeed be arbitrary and isn't a good idea, unless you find a really specific descriptive passage or something. But if they do support the material in the article then perhaps they
419:
might be of use to you. I remember it discussing the general design of Heian rather than the palace itself, but there is some discussion of ceremonial and leisure practice. Just a thought. Also, I think the article needs a close copy-editing: I've changed a couple of errors that caught my eye, but I
326:
Thanks for the effort you're putting into this. If your
Japanese-speaking contact can provide us with further sources that can be verified, that's great. As for the primary sources, it took me a while to understand that you were referring to the three literary texts; yes, they've been all translated
369:
I hope this finally settles the question of available
English-language sources. As for the main Japanese source mentioned in the quote above, its availability in English-speaking countries seems to be limited: I was not able to locate a matching reference in the Bodleyan (Oxford) or in the Harvard
316:
It's not that dire. Featured articles are generally considered to need multiple high quality sources. Yours appear very high quality. I have asked for help from a
Japanese speaker, and hopefully she can find someone familiar with the subject that can help out. I agree you shouldn't list references
258:
You are right, I do not unfortunately read
Japanese, and that is one reason I have not attempted to review the Japanese original research articles referred to in the sources I have used (and I do not think that just copying articles' names without making own assessment of the content would be good
236:
The fact that you're that confident of the quality of the sources is a good thing. No number isn't everything, independence and corroboration (or disagreement) would ideally result from more varied sources though. But you're right that they are just smaller parts not focused on the subject was the
216:
should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in original), and "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected
297:
In summary, I think that given the scarcity of
English-language sources the article is currently as well sourced as can be expected. While I'm in principle open to the idea of listing Japanese sources (that someone else should then inspect), I think it would be first necessary to have the general
293:
says: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in
Knowledge, but with care. Don't misuse primary sources. Edits that rely on primary sources should make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
390:
to the Melvyl catalogue entry. If there'ssomeone with reasonable access to one of these libraries a verification of the references could be made there for giving direct footnote references. However, I still think this would be an overkill in the
English-language Knowledge. However, having propre
182:
scholarly and detailed works, written by recognized academics specialised in Hein period history and archaeology. I would, in particular, propose that you have a look at McCullough and McCullough (1980), where the 22-page section on the Palace qualifies as a sufficient source on its own. Further
352:
Verifications made: the only non-Japanese source in the footnotes to McCullough and McCullough (1980) is Ponsonby-Fane (1956), which I have now added in the Further reading section. This is a reissue of a 1931 Hong Kong book, itself a compilation of journal articles from 1925–28. It is also the
317:
you haven't verified yourself. And though you do need to be very careful with primary sources, that doesn't mean they can't be valuable. I notice that both of the texts you described have been translated to English. If you could get a hold of those I believe that could help a lot. -
157:
focused on the specific topic of this article, but they just appear to be general works including a little information on the palace. Also you'd have to convince me that there aren't any other good sources of information on the palace and I'd be surprised if that were the
146:
Support. Upon review, it seems clear the quality of the article is among Knowledge's best. I'd love to see someone get a hold of the Japanese sources, but I'm fairly convinced that it would lead to no or few corrections, based on the quality of the sources that were used.
226:
I hope this answers the points made in the previous comment. Finally, in case someone succeeds in finding a new source with new information that should be added to the list of cited references, I would be more than happy to do so (as well as to study the source myself).
374:). In HOLLIS there is a matching title (京都の歴史), but with different publishing date and publisher. Again, I would not like to add a reference which I cannot verify myself, let alone one that appears to be hard to veryfy at all in English-speaking countries.
173:
I'm afraid that unfortunately the sources available are few, and to my knowledge there are no English (probably no non-Japanese) sources focussed just on the Palace. On the other hand, I hope you are not making a judgement based on just the
217:
publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." As far as I see, these criteria are amply satisfied, unless someone is willing to challenge a statement made in the article, in which case a further footnote would be needed.
82:
quality. Encouraged by the GA reviewers' comments, and having finally found the time to go through the article's references and to add the previously missing page numbers, I'm submitting the article as an FA candidate.
302:
does indeed require that in a situation like this; if it does, I'm afraid it raises the bar on what can be a featured article to al level where we can expect very few new ones (and a massive downgradings through
78:
status in July this year (GAR archived ). In the GA process a few reviewers expressed their view that missing page number references in notes were the only thing keeping the article from being of
386:
Further searches located the correct 京都の歴史 referred to above (10 volumes, published 1968–1976 in Tokyo by Gakugei shorin) in a few University of California libabries. Here's a
276:... The two long appendices, on ranks and titles and on the Heian palace compound, are so thorough and authoritative that they are not likely to be superseded for ...
353:
English-language source referred to in McCullough (1999) (the Cambridge History of Japan section); this is what the footnote on page 97 in McCullough(1999) says:
204:
against reliable sources, not any specific number of sources nor even that the provided bibliography is comprehensive (even though I think the one in the present
71:
462:
40:
431:
there that cannot be found in the main references used. However, now that we have the "Further reading" section, I'll add the Morris book there.
337:
could be listed as general references without individual citations. I'd like to see what other people think about that and the general issue. -
387:
30:
17:
360:, vol. 1 (Tokyo: Gakugei shorin, 1970). A much older but still mostly reliable English-language study is R.A.B. Ponsonby-Fane,
290:
416:
448:
435:
424:
395:
378:
341:
331:
321:
311:
241:
231:
164:
135:
123:
104:
87:
444:
Fine article, thoroughly researched, clearly written, nicely illustrated. Valuable contribution to Knowledge.
278:" (unfortunately I do not have JStor access to retrieve more text, but I think the reviewer's point is clear).
356:
The chief source for the physical description and history of Heian presented here is Kyoto-shi, comp.,
96:, Good article: phrase "foreign ambassadors were not received more most of the Heian period" (in
391:
bibliographical data, I've now added this reference to Further reading section in the article.
178:
of references; instead of being "general works with little information on the palace" all four
417:
bbs sr 1/104-4438807-7787138?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190303187&sr=1-1 Amazon link
294:
Further interpretation of primary source material can be sourced to a secondary source."
299:
193:
371:
364:(Kyoto: The Ponsonby Memorial Society, 1956; first published in article form 1925–28).
421:
304:
286:
132:
101:
271:
205:
79:
75:
67:
57:
285:
sources, using those as article sources would not appear to be in agreement with
432:
392:
375:
338:
328:
318:
308:
263:— I do believe the sources used do pass the test of being of sufficient quality.
260:
238:
228:
209:
197:
161:
120:
84:
153:
references? I could possibly handle it if the were all scholarly, detailed,
445:
461:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
267:
388:
number=031298&set entry=000007&format=999 pointer
149:
I hate to say it since it looks like a good article, but
414:
World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan
259:practice). The second reason is what is stated in
455:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
465:. No further edits should be made to this page.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
261:WP:V#Sources in languages other than English
119:Fixed that one. Thanks for pointing it out!
463:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
362:Kyoto: The Old Capital of Japan, 794–1869
192:Second, I would like to point that what
266:In addition, I did a further search in
291:Knowledge:WikiProject History#Sources
214:challenged or likely to be challenged
100:, para 4) does not make much sense.--
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
24:
212:"All quotations and any material
110:
449:02:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
436:16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
425:15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
396:08:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
379:07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
342:15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
332:14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
322:12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
312:14:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
242:13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
232:07:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
165:05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
136:02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
124:14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
105:13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
88:20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
66:The article has been through
420:there are more out there.--
31:featured article nomination
482:
52:17:10, 24 September 2007.
412:I wonder if Ivan Morris'
98:Greater Palace (Daidairi)
458:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
298:discussion of whether
281:Finally, as regards
208:is). Moreover, by
74:) and then given
473:
460:
372:HOLLIS catalogue
370:library system (
358:Kyōto no rekishi
118:
114:
113:
48:The article was
38:
481:
480:
476:
475:
474:
472:
471:
470:
469:
456:
289:. This is what
111:
109:
61:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
479:
477:
468:
467:
439:
438:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
367:
366:
365:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
295:
279:
268:Google Scholar
264:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
221:
220:
219:
218:
187:
186:
185:
184:
168:
167:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
60:
55:
54:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
478:
466:
464:
459:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
437:
434:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
418:
415:
411:
397:
394:
389:
385:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
368:
363:
359:
355:
354:
351:
343:
340:
335:
334:
333:
330:
325:
324:
323:
320:
315:
314:
313:
310:
306:
301:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
243:
240:
235:
234:
233:
230:
225:
224:
223:
222:
215:
211:
207:
203:
202:verifiability
199:
195:
191:
190:
189:
188:
181:
177:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
152:
145:
144:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:
125:
122:
117:
108:
107:
106:
103:
99:
95:
92:
91:
90:
89:
86:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
64:Self-nominate
59:
56:
53:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
457:
454:
441:
440:
413:
409:
408:
383:
361:
357:
282:
275:
213:
201:
179:
175:
154:
150:
148:
128:
115:
97:
93:
63:
62:
58:Heian Palace
49:
47:
35:
28:
200:ask for is
68:peer review
70:(archived
422:Monocrat
410:Comment:
133:Grahamec
102:Grahamec
50:promoted
442:Support
300:WP:FACR
283:primary
272:article
206:article
194:WP:FACR
129:Support
94:Comment
433:Stca74
393:Stca74
376:Stca74
339:Taxman
329:Stca74
319:Taxman
309:Stca74
305:WP:FAR
287:WP:NOR
239:Taxman
229:Stca74
176:number
162:Taxman
121:Stca74
85:Stca74
384:Done:
158:case.
16:<
210:WP:V
198:WP:V
196:and
151:four
116:Done
72:here
446:Fg2
307:).
274:: "
180:are
155:and
160:-
131:--
80:FA
76:GA
33:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.