Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Slave's Cry to Heaven/archive1

Black Slave's Cry to Heaven

Featured article candidates/Black Slave's Cry to Heaven/archive1

Nominator(s): — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a student stage performance that ran for all of two shows. Why is it important? Because one of the performers went on to become one of the PRC's leading drama theorists, and in part due to his influence the play was canonized as the country's first modern drama. The article provides a comprehensive review of the literature, including Ouyang Yuqian's essay that seems to have provided the main source of information for most subsequent studies. Through a friend at Waseda, I was also able to gain access to a contemporary review, which was nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi Chris Woodrich, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain because of their age and are tagged accordingly. They are placed in appropriate locations in the article. They all have captions and alt texts. I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the worker George is denied recognition" Did you mean George denied his recognition or his recognition was denied by others?
- His recognition is denied, which is why the passive tense is used here; he was given an award, but his owner takes it away. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"raucous" can you replace that word? as a non-native speaker, I had to do research on what is this.
- Not done. The source indicates that they escape under the cover of drunkards singing and women going to visit men, and there are few other words that indicate such a wild and disorganized noise briefly. Per WP:DUE, I don't think adding those details would help. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but escape" maybe escaped?
- Not done. "They are chased by" is in the passive voice (which requires verb 3), whereas escape is in the active voice (which, as this is written in the present tense, requires verb 1). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"able to reach the common person, without the educational requirements of the written word" I think a comma is unnecessary here.
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "thousand" should be with s
- Not done. As seen at 9000 (number), the standard way of writing the natural number 9,000 is "nine thousand"; since we start with "three", MOS:NUMERAL holds that all parallel measures should be written in the same format (i.e. spelled out). If this were an unspecified number of "thousands", that would make sense. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
maybe add a comma after "thousand in 1903"
- Not entirely sure, but done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lin drew parallels between the African-American slaves and the experiences of Chinese migrants in the United States" What do you mean by "parallels"?
- In this case, "likened". I've changed it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Also unlike traditional theatre" missing comma
- Not done. Also unlike traditional theatre is its own subclause. If the article had not discussed diversions from tradition in the immediately preceding sentence, I'd agree. In this case, the entire subclause is continuing the thought of the previous sentence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The leading character, the slave George Harris," Is the leading character is George Harris also? Because it was written like the leading character and the slave are different person I think?
- Reworked to avoid a false title. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"recalling that it had not lost money," is kinda awkward, maybe reword/rephrase it?
- He doesn't say that it made money, which is why I stuck with the awkward phrasing. Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is "packed house"? I apologize for my ignorance
- A packed house is a somewhat idiomatic phrase that means "a sold-out theatre". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"prepared in 1957 by dramatists" comma after this.
- Not done. "Dramatists including Tian Han and Ouyang Yuqian" is a noun phrase that stands on its own, meaning the same as "a group of dramatists that included Tian Han and Ouyang Yuqian" without being as verbose. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. Despite that other words are hard for non-native people to understand, I believe that the article is still written very well. Good job! Btw, if you have a moment to review also Ethan Winters, I'll appreciate it. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bp! I've responded to your comments above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't think I have any issues left, so I'll Support this nom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from LEvalyn -- support

In my GA review, I checked cites 5, 19, 24, 29, 36, and 37 with no issues, which covered Liu 2006, Liu 2013 and Qi 2018. For this review, I will check all cites to Yu 2009, Liu 2007, and Liu 2009. The only sources I cannot check are Ouyang 1984 (in Chinese) and Asahi Shimbun (in Japanese). Neither of those raises red flags for me, especially since the material cited to Ouyang 1984 is in keeping with how Ouyang is discussed in English-language sources. Any notes/sugestions will be below. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Asahi Shimbun newspaper article is quite old, it might be a valuable aid to verifiability if the citation included information about a particular archive which contains it, especially if it's been microfilmed or digitized. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a source check question, but I wonder if the beginning of the Legacy section would benefit from a one-sentence explanation of xiqu vs huaju. Something like: "Black Slave's Cry to Heaven has been recognized as the first modern Western-style Chinese drama. [Modern Chinese drama, known as huaju, has X traits compared to tradictional opera, or xiqu]. Black Slave's Cry to Heaven gained this recognition based on a history..." In general, I think it's a strength of this article that it minimizes the jargon of theatrical history, so no need if you don't like the idea, but this seemed like a good place to set out that big-picture framing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also not a source comment (sorry!), but you need either the comma or the "that" in Shouhua Qi writes, that "none... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LEvalyn,
I've added a hidden comment that the item came from the Waseda University Library in a digital format and is available upon request. I don't know if my friend would get in trouble, so I'd rather not put his name if I can help it.

I'm not entirely sure how useful it is, given that we have articles on civilized drama and huaju that go into the differences in detail. I have added a one-sentence summary about the continued emphasis on spoken, rather than sung, dialogue. Aside from MacKerras, Britannica and Oxford Reference both emphasize this point above all others.

Removed the comma.

Thanks for being willing to take another look, LEvalyn!. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden comment is a good idea, that makes sense! Your additions look good to me, and I take your point that the details are well-covered in their respective articles. I'll turn my attention to the actual source review now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nitpick, but In commemoration of Black Slave's Cry to Heaven, several further adaptations of Uncle Tom's Cabin have been written and produced on significant anniversaries. isn't fully verified by just p. 2 of Yu 2009. Page 2 just says that two further adaptations were produced; it's p. 5 and p. 8 that confirm that each one commemorated Black Slave's Cry to Heaven and were timed on an anniversary. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to 5 & 8. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
George Harris was portrayed by Xie Kangbai, with Li Shutong in the role of Emily Shelby and Huang Nannan portraying her husband Arthur. Ouyang Yuqian took the role of an enslaved woman should be cited to p. 5 of Yu 2009. It also might read more smoothly if the names were fully parallel, always actor-role or always role-actor, instead of switching it up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Li Shutong served as stage designer should be cited to p. 3 of Yu 2009. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, everything cited to Yu 2009 checks out: fully verified without close paraphrasing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That concludes my source review! Very happy to support on sources once those page numbers are sorted out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Seems I lost track of the page number when writing out the Li Shutong sentence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the fixes, looking great! It's easy to get mixed up by a page or two but all the big-picture important stuff with the sourcing was fine. Changing to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, looking over my comments again, it looks like I didn't explicitly state it -- I also checked Liu 2007 and Liu 2009, which were both good, no notes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

"denied recognition for his hard work when his owner Harris takes away his award. When he returns home". Optional: lose one use of "when"?

Replaced one with "after". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the block quote complies with MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".

Three reasons for the block quote. One, the troupe considered this excerpt from the preface important enough to include on the poster, and thus it speaks to their point of view and emphasis. Two, the sources tend to quote at least part of this quote in discussing the students' political goals in staging the play, showing that it is considered particularly relevant. Three, quoting the text allows for the students' political goals to be cast in their own voice, rather than Wikipedia's voice, which I believe better conforms with NPOV. That being said, I can condense it to one or two paraphrased sentences if truly necessary. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reasoning. That drags it up to borderline IMO. The MoS v IAR; argh! Let me think on't.

"Hongō-za theatre". Upper-case T?

All three instances made uppercase. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Slave's Cry to Heaven had two showings". That seems a short run. Is any reason known as to why?

Not explicit in the sources, but given their previous production was a single showing and that they had to rent the theatre as an amateur troupe of students in a foreign country (some of them being supported by the RoC government), it's not surprising. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"While this adaptation again presented the slaves as freeing themselves, it put greater emphasis on resistance and class struggle while simultaneously decrying ..." Optional again, but "While ... while ..."
- Nixed one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for switching citation styles when you get to "Explanatory notes"? I am thinking of WP:PAREN.
- As per my previous FACs, I use harv in footnotes to avoid the extra click for readers; this has been my way of doing things for over a decade (Sudirman used this format back in 2012). I believe that makes it used in north of thirty FAs. Consensus at WT:Citing sources ~~last~~ earlier this month was that this meets the terms of WP:PAREN. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (edited 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

That's a novel use of "consensus", but I can be Nelsonian about it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally leaning more for than against. Doesn't seem to have resulted in any change/clarification to the guideline. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've responded to your points above. Thanks for having a look! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not back to you on the block quote within 48 hours then feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

"the Qing dynasty sought to implement reform": suggest linking "reform" to Late Qing reforms.
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"as it was perceived as being better able to reach the common person without the educational requirements of the written word": how about "as it was perceived as being better able to reach the common person than the written word, since most people could not read"? "Educational requirements" is a bit of a roundabout way to say this. I assume the "most people could not read" is covered by the existing source, but p. 140 of this book would do if you decide to make this change.
- Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"began to take their studies in Japan": can we simplify this to "began to study in Japan"?
- Simplified. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For this performance, the Spring Willow Society decided to adapt ...": the previous sentence also has "the troupe decided to", so perhaps we can trim this to "... the Spring Willow Society adapted ..."?
- Nixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The script to this play": should be "The script for this play", shouldn't it? Or is that just a BrEng preference?
- Changed for consistency with the endnote. That being said, both phrasings appear to be supported in the literature on drama; can't say off the top of my head if it's a regional thing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In his foreword, Lin likened the slavery of African-American and the experiences of Chinese migrants in the United States": suggest "to" rather than "and".
- Good catch; missed this when replacing "parallels between" earlier. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"To advance its mission, the play experienced several modifications during the adaptation process." This seems unnatural phrasing. I assume the mission is the allegory? And it's odd to use the passive to say the play experienced modifications. How about "To bring out the allegory, Zeng Xiaogu made several changes to the play"?
- I've rephrased to "To bring out the allegory, several modifications were made during the adaptation process." I'm loathe to explicitly attribute these to Zeng Xiaogu when the sources don't, especially given the context of contemporary Chinese drama. Through the 1920s Chinese drama generally used short synopses that were fleshed out by the actors through improvisation. Though Black Slave's Cry to Heaven had a full script, with such a strong cultural leaning toward actor-driven stories it's possible that others in the cast contributed to changes before or during staging. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest giving the date of Yu's comment in the text to make it clearer this was not a contemporary reaction.
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"has been canonized as the first modern Western-style Chinese drama,[35] gaining this recognition based on a history of modern Chinese drama prepared in 1957": would we lose anything by cutting this to "was canonized as the first modern Western-style Chinese drama in a history of modern Chinese drama prepared in 1957"? If I understand correctly, this history of drama is the one that identifies the play in this way, and the canonization is accepted still (despite Liu's comment about it being a calculated choice)?
- Hmm... I feel like the current phrasing makes it clearer that the 1957 canonization is maintained in current sources, rather than being a one-off. Canon can be rewritten, and I know in my own academic background in Indonesian lit that [in said literature] there are ongoing efforts to get certain works incorporated in the canon that had been excluded because of nativist tendencies among earlier writers. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And can we move Liu's remark into the main text? It seems very relevant.
- Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All minor points. I take Gog's point about the blockquote but I think it's OK, given the justifications you cite above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. Responses above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes look good, and I'm fine with your answer to the point you disagreed with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to follow in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]