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

Nominator: OtharLuin (talk · contribs) 16:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 00:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Since it's been a long time since this was nominated, I'd appreciate a confirmation that you're still interested in bringing this to GA and will be available to respond to feedback. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LEvalyn! First of all, thank you for taking on the task of reviewing this article for GA status. It's a big piece, and I think the reason it's been sitting around for so long without a reviewer is that they may have been a little discouraged by its size.

For reference, most of my work on sumo-related articles has been reviewed by Adam. A good example of how we proceeded can be found at Talk:Gyōji/GA1. Nevertheless, I can adapt to your way of doing things, I am quite open to comments. 👍

Thanks again for the review! - OtharLuin (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished evaluating the article -- a really interesting and informative read! I am placing it on hold for now. There are a few open suggestions below but I think most of them are optional. The two important things are giving the lead another pass (there are still several parts of the article not summarized here) and addressing the Cuyler 1979 copyvio. Take your time, and let me know when the article is ready for me to take another look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU for taking the time to proofread and correct my work. The articles I write tend to be very long, which can be discouraging. I also wonder if my proofreaders make more comments on my articles than on other articles of similar length. Perhaps I'm still a little green. - OtharLuin (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a bit of a delay, but I've looked at your changes and given everything a last look, and I think it is good to go! This is a wonderfully thorough and well-researched article, and I really enjoyed getting to collaborate on it a bit. Thanks for indulging my "hands on" approach, and thanks for your contributions on this topic :) I am satisfied that all the GA criteria are now met -- congrats! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• My first thought is that the article is very long, and might be served by spinning out some sub-sections into their own articles, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. For example, for the section on ichimon, we could keep the first bit (the four paragraphs from As in other traditional disciplines... to ...evolved with the association itself.) and all the rest of it could become a standalone article (linked with a hatnote, of course) on ichimon, which is currently lacking. I don't immediately see other good categories for this treatment, but do you have any thoughts on length or organization? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's also something I thought about when I published the rewritten article from my sandbox. I don't see any problem with creating an article on "Ichimon (sumo)", but I'm also torn about which parts to split off into their own articles. Heya is an article that serves as a development of hooks found in other articles. I think it's because of the subject matter; it's a big part of sumo culture. However, significantly reducing the section on ichimon should greatly reduce the length of the article.

  If that's okay with you, I'll create the article and rephrase the sentences. - OtharLuin (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done for now - I reduced the section on ichimon to the bare minimum and created the article Ichimon (sumo) to expand on it. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, this definitely helps! Maybe when I am looking more closely at other sections something else will come to mind as an option to spin out... often "history of X" can be split out of the article for "X", but in this case it looks like a lot of discussion of historical development is spread through each section, in a way that seems valuable to those sections. I'll keep thinking about it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all relevant and have appropriate licenses. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I started a prose pass, mostly looking at concision, through to the end of the "History" section; I'll keep chipping away at it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the lead, I don't think it follows MOS:LEAD very well-- quite a lot of the article is not summarized anywhere in the lead. I'd like to ask you to revisit the lead, making sure each sub-section gets at least a sentence of summary in the lead. In doing so, you might discover better ways to organize the article (especially if there are topics redundantly discussed in more than one place) or topics that can be split out into sub-articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thinking about organization, I wonder if "Women in the heya" belongs in the "Stablemates" section (which could perhaps be called "Stable personnel") and "Stablemates matches" belongs in "Life in the stable"? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Moved it. I just wanted to focus on the relationships between the professionals within the team, which leaves women out, as you may have noticed when reading the section on okamisan. Your reasoning makes more sense. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Rephrased the lead, tell me what you think. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely an improvement! I also made some changes. But there's still no mention of the info in "history", "on tour", "a strict lifestyle", or "new evolutions". Can you give it another pass to add some of the key info from those sections? Do feel free to completely re-arrange the changes I made -- I was able to add info from some of the other missing sections but wasn't really satisfied with the result. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I think the introduction is now satisfactory (although a little long? 😅) - OtharLuin (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the additions to the lead! I agree it got a little long, and it felt a little disjointed, so I poked around at it some more with the idea of making it flow well as a standalone summary even if it didn't follow the same order as the article. I'm happy with it now, though of course if you think I took out something important you should put it back. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is more of a comment than a request... I ended up getting kind of sucked in to the "Stable ownership" section. I kept seeing ways it could be made more concise. In particular, there was a lot of information that was redundant with the existing toshiyori article, and a number of details that were not needed. Before I realised how deep I was getting into it, I had reduced the wordcount of the section by 40%. Now that the ichimon section has been split out, the length is no longer in the territory where a WP:TOOBIG maintenance tag would be applicable (which was on my mind as a WP:GAFAIL criteria, if the article has, or needs, cleanup banners) -- but I do think the article as a whole has a lot of opportunities to get more concise, which might be something to keep in mind for the future. Going forward, I'm going to try to be less heavy-handed as I continue with evaluating the prose, and just pay attention to whether it's understandable or whether there might be issues for the "focus" criteria. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did some extra work to simplify the article. Tell me what you think - OtharLuin (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These changes are wonderful! Thanks for digging so much into it. As a novice to the subject, I think the re-organization has really improved the clairity and flow for novices :) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- my prose pass has now made it through to the end of the "Stablemates" section. As I go through, please do treat my changes as suggestions, especially if my little knowledge about sumo has led me to say something less accurately or without the right terms -- I am sure you will see improvements to how I have put things. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for proofreading it. No problem with your rewordings 😊 - OtharLuin (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion -- I think the "ichimon" section needs to move much earlier, before the "Stablemates" section. There are several references to ichimon through here, so we should introduce the concept to readers before they need to use it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done OtharLuin (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion -- I feel like I don't have enough cultural background to understand this saying: In this highly masculine world, a Shōwa era saying held that the birth of a daughter in the midst of a heya was a source of great joy -- if there is no place for women there, why is a girl arriving in the space so valued? Can you clarify or remove? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have slightly reworded the sentence, as my interpretation is that in this very masculine world, the birth of a girl was well regarded because it brought a little diversity among the residents of the heya. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• During the scandal surrounding the links between certain stables and organized crime -- I think it's too abrupt to refer to "the scandal" here when it hasn't been introduced. Is there a good article to wikilink for context? Or another way to phrase this? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that you have rephrased it, and the sentence works perfectly for me. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion -- On reflection, I think the photo of the genkan of Dewanoumi stable isn't very relevant in its current spot. It's a great photo, though -- is there an other place in the article where it would be more related to the nearby text, or can you expand the caption to point out its relevance? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am relatively flexible about the use of illustrations. I admit that I put it here so as not to overload other sections and upset the balance of the article. I tend to leave it here if it's ok with you. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I have finished reviewing the prose! Having read the whole article carefully, I am also satisfied that it meets the "focus" criterion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For my source check I'll look at cites 2, 4, 14, 39, 42, 49, 54, 56, 61, 62, 66, 71, 79, 92, and 117 as numbered in this diff. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2, 14, 39, 42, 54, 56, 61, verify with no copyvio or close paraphrase.
  • For 4 ("Sumo stable". Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (4th ed.). Kenkyusha Limited. 1990.), I am having trouble finding the source to verify this but it seems like an important one to get right. Could you share the full entry? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference was there before I took over the article. I searched for the dictionary and there is a version on the Internet Archive, but it is not the right edition and the definition is not there, or is no longer there. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • For 49 (NHK, "大相撲の一門って、いったい何なの") the first citation verifies but I'm not seeing mention of weddings, funerals, promotions, and ring-entering ceremonies. If that's a failing of my Google Translate, can you point out the relevant quotes? Or, perhaps there is another source for this material? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done

    [ring entering ceremonie]

    横綱は白鵬も照ノ富士も「伊勢ケ濱一門」に所属しています。横綱土俵入りで太刀持ちと露払いを務める力士も同じ部屋か、同じ部屋に関取がいない場合には一門から出ます。新横綱となった照ノ富士が明治神宮で奉納相撲を行ったときも太刀持ち宝富士、露払い照強と同じ部屋の2人でした。

    [promotions, wedding and funeral]

    活動では冠婚葬祭のおつきあいが多いです。コロナ禍になる前の令和元年6月に行われた大関貴景勝の昇進披露宴でも二所ノ関一門の親方や関取衆が、大勢出席してお祝いをする姿が見られました。

    It's here. I've had a lot of problems with Google translations in the past, so I highly recommend Deepl for anything related to Japan 😅 - OtharLuin (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this, very helpful! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • For 62 (Cuyler 1979, p. 148), all of this material is practically word-for-word in the source: Since the 1970s, sumo has developed an intensive scouting system. The largest stables have established scouting networks throughout the country, partly supported with the help of their nationwide patron organizations, with retired wrestlers and patron-club members acting as part-time scouts for the stables., When on provincial tours, masters are always [on the] lookout for potential talent Please revise. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same copyvio is at Rikishi#Recruits too. Please revise there as well. Comparing the two, it looks like there's quite a lot of duplication between the explanation at heya and the explanation at rikishi, but organizationally I think it would be best for one of them to be the "main" explanation (merging in all the extra detail from the other one), and the other article just has a one-paragraph summary and a hatnote. Or even split it all out into a standalone article and summarize/hatnote at both rikishi and heya? I don't think a re-org is necessary for a GA (though fixing the copyvio is), but it might be valuable to readers. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Rephrased to comply. I will make the changes to the Rikishi article later. Heya should be the main focus on this matter. Historically, this is because no information was given about life in the stables before I took over the articles, and Rikishi was developed before Heya. - OtharLuin (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • For 66 (Cuyler 1979, p. 150) the information is on p 148, not 150; I have fixed this. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 71 (Kindai Picks 知れば大相撲が楽しくなる), this is a nitpick, but the only exception this one mentions is a heya shutting down when the stablemaster retires. Is there another source that also mentions following a coach to a new heya, or the detail that wrestlers will transfer within their clan if a stable shuts down? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done let me know if the added sources (Yomiuri Shimbun + Sankei Shimbun) are sufficient - OtharLuin (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • On my second round of checks, 79, 92, and 117 verify with no copyvio/close paraphrase. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 92 (Bunshun 大関貴景勝が"親方"の娘と婚約 相撲部屋のおかみさんとは?), I made some prose edits that I thought were more accurate to the source. I can tell that machine translation isn't giving me enough context for "ファンから求められる”力士像”も変化しつつある" -- What is the ”力士像”? If it's a term with some history, that might be good to note here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional suggestion -- p 76 of Schilling inludes the information that in the Edo period sumo was associated with the demimonde, which I found useful context. Maybe a sentence on this can be added in "history"? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I ~would add more on this topic in the section on society's perception of rikishi rather than in the article on Heya as such. I will add it when I return to the section on life in the heya. Good catch though 🙌 - OtharLuin (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional suggestion -- I notice that the information on "recent" trends in scouting and recruitment is from 1979. Are there any more recent sources that could give an update on the major trends in this area? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a topic that comes up regularly in discussions about pro sumo. Good books about the sport were published before the 2000s, and sumo has evolved somewhat (albeit very marginally). Some of the information is a little outdated, but as someone who follows the sport in general, I can attest that this is still the case. - OtharLuin (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am satisfied that the article is broad, neutral, and non-OR, and the sources are reliable. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The copying from Cuyler 1979 concerned me a little though so I also checked a few more cites to that specific source: p. 72, pp. 58–59, pp. 128–129, p. 139, p. 142.~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • p72: This strikes me as WP:CLOP: Nearly all of the sumo stables founded by the Edo-based sumo association were founded between 1751 and 1781., Nearly all of the Eco sumo-beya (sumo stables) were founded between 1751 and 1781.
  • pp58–59 looks fine.
  • pp128-129: The statement was severely criticized in the press, it was severely criticized in the press
  • p139: this also feels like CLOP: The treatment a wrestler receives in his stable is based exclusively on his ranking, A wrestler's treatment in his stable also depends solely on his rank (also it leaves out the really interesting part, that rank can conflict with the are and experience, creating friction with the hierarchy that usually operates in Japanse society)
  • p142: When the sekitori practice is at its height, the stable cooks begin to prepare the first and major meal of the day (usually chankonabe)., When the sekitori practice is at its height, the stable cooks [...] begin to prepare the first and major meal of the day.; in most stables the cooking brigade is supervised by one of the oldest and most experienced of the low-ranking wrestlers [...] often affectionately referred to as ojii-chan in most stables the cooking brigade is supervised by one of the oldest and most experienced of the apprentices, affectionately referred to as oji-chan; Around eleven, the wrestlers all head for the baths in descending order of rank, so that the sekitori always benefit from a clean bathroom. when, at last, practice ends around 11:30 A.M., the wrestlers all head for the baths--in descending order of rank.

Oof. Okay, to my eye it looks like whenever Cuyler 1979 was used to add material, it was pretty consistently plagiarised, though there have been some modifications. Honestly, I think the simplest route is to re-write every sentence cited to this book. (Probably faster than checking them individually and only rewriting the problematic ones.) None of the other sources looked problematic in the source check, though, so it strikes me a as a localized and therefore quite resolvable issue. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, there is a line between plagiarism and stating what is written in black and white in the sources...

• p.72 :  Done
• pp.128-129 :  Done
• p. 139  Done
• p.142  Done, rephrased the last one a bit

OtharLuin (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it can be very hard to find a new way to word things, especially when the source has expressed them well. Personally, my bar for avoiding WP:CLOP is that I'd like someone to be able to look at my version and my source side-by-side and not be able to tell for sure that that source was the one where I got the information (that is, it should be equally plausible that I learned the information from a different source that also verifies it). Your revisions help a lot, though, and I made a few tweaks to some of the other citations to this source, so I think this is good! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I noticed a close match on the rikishi article, I also checked in case there were other misses. At rikishi, the cites to pages 110, 77, 78, and 21 were all perfectly fine, so it may just be that recruitment section which had issues. At Gyōji, cites to pages 37, 73, and 152 were fine. Whew! So it looks like it's just here where some work needs to be done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]