Talk:Nejishiki

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nejishiki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Plifal (talk · contribs) 14:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I'll use a ping once I see any issue that needs to be solved. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Plifal: I gave it a good read it and enjoyed. Everything seems well written and organized. There are some doubts I have:

• Is the romaji from hepburn necessary? It's the same title.
  • i suppose not, i just include it by default.--Plifal (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• Is there a need to credit Yoshiharu Tsuge twice in the infobox? I guess this type credit is common if it is a remake of another work like Mappa's take on Dororo.
  • didn't catch that! deleted the "written by" credit, although maybe the reverse should be the case.--Plifal (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• In general, some authors seems to called for their last name first rather than the Western style Wikipedia uses like Mamoru Oshii being called Oshii Mamoru.
  • throughout the article i've used japanese name order. per WP:JTITLE i've followed the naming convention established by holmberg, kinsella, suzuki, and camacho lópez that default to tsuge yoshiharu. other authors on his manga also use this name order (tom gill and igarashi yoshikuni) instances of other people's names have been kept for consistency and always linked to their article page to prevent confusion.--Plifal (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• The nonfree image doesn't seem to be that useful
  • well, i thought it apt to use it because it is often reproduced in discussions of the manga's themes, and showcases almost everything that is talked about (which can be viewed in the alt text); including tsuge's approach to existential horror, the countryside setting, industrialisation, the photorealistic montage combined with cartoonish character images etc. something i don't think the cover image captures. but if you think it should be removed then i won't push it.--Plifal (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• The quote box doesn't add much. I suggest using the free image of the author instead with a shorter commentary.
  • i'd prefer to keep this, because i think we get a better sense of the development of his thought about the manga's creation. the dream narrative is often brought up in subsequent discussions, but here we have tsuge not even mentioning this aspect only a couple of months after initial publication.--Plifal (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That is all. It's me nitpicking. If you believe some parts are worth keeping, reply to me. Remember to ping me. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Tintor2 thank you kindly for taking this on! i appreciate your review!! please let me know if there's anything i can do to assist you!!!--Plifal (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  Passed the review. If you ever consider the idea of the FA nomination I suggest looking to make sources more accessible like an archive of the books. Good work. Tintor2 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 12:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the godfather of manga referred to a surrealist one-shot as an "irrational gag manga"?

• Source: Holmberg, Ryan, ed. (2023). "Dreams and Wanderings: The Tsuge Yoshiharu Revolution, 1968–72". Nejishiki. Drawn & Quarterly. p. xxiii. ISBN 978-1-77046-506-0.

Quote: "Ergo, in 1977, when Tezuka, in his widely read How to Draw Manga, offered Nejishiki as his primary example of "irrational gag manga" [...] "

• ALT1: ... that the backgrounds in surrealist manga Nejishiki are inked photographs?

• Source: Holmberg, Ryan, ed. (2023). "Dreams and Wanderings: The Tsuge Yoshiharu Revolution, 1968–72". Nejishiki. Drawn & Quarterly. p. vi. ISBN 978-1-77046-506-0.

Quote: "Though Tsuge's appropriation of found photos was conservative by comparison--with just a few dozen documented swipes--not only did he copy photographs from some of the same books and magazines that Mizuki and his assistants did, sometimes he even used the exact same images."

• ALT2: ... that Nejishiki was a manga with a cult following among the 1960s avant-garde movement?

• Source: Holmberg, Ryan, ed. (2023). "Dreams and Wanderings: The Tsuge Yoshiharu Revolution, 1968–72". Nejishiki. Drawn & Quarterly. p. xxii. ISBN 978-1-77046-506-0.

Quote: "Nejishiki quickly became an icon of its era. It was frequently written about by prominent intellectuals and artists from a variety of fields, [...] spotlighted in publications about contemporary avant-garde culture, [...] "

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Plifal (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Plifal (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC).

• Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • verified for ALT1 only.

    Plifal (talk · contribs), great work on this really interesting article! I verified that ALT1 is sourced in the article.

    ALT0 is mostly verified. Everything in the hook is in the article and sourced except for the phrase "the godfather of manga". If this were added and sourced, then I could verify ALT0 which is a really interesting hook and possibly the best one.

    ALT2 is mostly verified. However, I don't see the article or the quoted source say Nejishiki was a manga with "a cult following". The article says something slightly different in stating the writer became a cult figure: "After the publication of Nejishiki, Tsuge became a cult figure among people interested in avant-garde manga..." Cunard (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• • • thanks Cunard for reviewing my dyk nomination!

• how about: ALT3: ... that Nejishiki was a manga with a following among the 1960s avant-garde movement?

minus the word "cult" should fix this issue.

• also happy with ALT4: ... that Osamu Tezuka referred to a surrealist one-shot as an "irrational gag manga"?

thought it would be ok considering it's verifiable within the osamu tezuka article which is linked to in ALT0. but with these changes made, are you satisfied?--Plifal (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Plifal, you're welcome! For ALT3, would you provide (1) a quote from the Wikipedia article that says it had "a following among the 1960s avant-garde movement" and (2) a quote from a source that verifies this?

  I verified ALT4.

  I think that ALT0 is a much more interesting hook than ALT4. Regarding ALT0, I can verify this hook if you added "the godfather of manga" right next to Osamu Tezuka to "Nejishiki" and added a citation to support he was called that. Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines#Hooks says "Hooks should be definite facts that are verified by citations in the article." I think there would be concerns if the hook contained the phrase "the godfather of manga" when Nejishiki did not have that information. The Wikipedia article Osamu Tezuka does call him "the godfather of manga" that but there is no citation next to that statement in his article. Cunard (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Cunard, i agree that ALT0 is better than ALT4, but i would be uncomfortable including the phrase in the article for Nejishiki since it would feel forced. would it be ok to include the reference in the tezuka article instead? regarding alt3, i think the cited quote from the source and sentence in the article you described adequately summarise this claim, no?

• Regarding ALT0, I'm not sure if that would be okay. My interpretation of the DYK guidelines is that for a DYK nomination with a single bolded article, all the facts in the hook needs to be in the nominated article. But I'm not particularly experienced in the DYK guidelines, so pinging experienced DYK contributor Launchballer (talk · contribs) for any feedback you can provide about this.

  I'm not able to find the "a following among the 1960s avant-garde movement" part of ALT3 in the Wikipedia article. The quote "After the publication of Nejishiki, Tsuge became a cult figure among people interested in avant-garde manga..." is largely about Tsuge instead of Nejishiki. It doesn't explicitly state (though might imply) that Nejishiki gained a following among the 1960s avant-garde movement. If it could be reworded to explicitly state this, then the hook could be verified. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• i disagree with your interpretation of the wording regarding ALT3, as it only makes sense in the context of Nejishiki's publication, but have nevertheless updated the article. my understanding of the dyk guidelines (as in all wikipedia), is that so long as the information is verifiable, it's ok. in this instance, it would be a problem if the hook (and/or the main article in the hook) didn't link to tezuka and didn't have any sourcing for the name used, but that similar monikers have generally been accepted if sourced, not burying the lead, and contextually relevant to the hook being used. i would welcome correction on this point though.--Plifal (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• ALT1, ALT2, and ALT3 are verified. I verified ALT3 after the recent update. WP:DYKRULES says, "The facts of the hook need to appear in the article with a citation no later than at the end of the sentences in which they appear." My interpretation of the rules is that the hook's facts should match what the article says without relying on the reader to make inferences that aren't explicitly stated by the text. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• but essentially as i understand it, the fact is not that tezuka is referred to as the godfather of manga, but rather that "tezuka said x", which is in the article. because the information is accessible and verifiable it shouldn't be an issue. cf. a hook that refers to a sports team/athlete by an epithet.--Plifal (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that a hook that does not have all the facts present in the article would get flagged at WP:ERRORS. But I could be wrong on this. If you'd like ALT0 to be run, I recommend asking at Wikipedia talk:Did you know for input and suggestions from DYK editors who are much more experienced than I am. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Cunard, no it's ok! like you though, i thought it would be the most interesting hook. my preference would be for ALT3 then—thank you again for taking the time to review and for dealing with my difficultness!!--Plifal (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• No worries, this was a really interesting topic. I like ALT0 too and wish we could have used it. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

'This sweet-maker he accuses of being his mother from before he was born.'

Huh? Why would that be an accusation? And if someone is your mother, how can she not be your 'mother from before you are born'? Humans always spend some time in the womb before being born. This seems like a tautology. ~2025-31121-91 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

it's an avant-garde manga, the story itself does not follow any particular logic. i urge you to read it, and if you have a better suggestion for phrasing please do share! :) --Plifal (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, 'avant-garde' does not by definition mean 'nonsensical'. To my shame, I have to admit that I do not read Japanese. By all means, if the text literally says nothing but something like 'Oh you bad woman, you were my mother before I was born!' and nothing in the context makes it make sense, then clearly there is no way to improve the article either (except perhaps to add quotation marks to the puzzling phrase 'she was his mother before he was born' so as to make clear that this puzzling phrase really is the author's and not a distortion introduced by the retelling). I just assumed that it might make more sense in the original and that the retelling is what makes it (more) nonsensical, because that is often the case.--~2025-31121-91 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)