# Talk:Naewat-dang shamanic paintings

Talk:Naewat-dang shamanic paintings/GA1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naewat-dang shamanic paintings/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 15:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Karaeng Matoaya, this is a very old nomination. Apologies you had to wait so long. Very good first impression, with a potential concern being accessibility to a generalist reader. I'll take a closer look soon. CMD (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"As Naewat-dang is now defunct". Not clear exactly what Naewat-dang means at this point, it could refer a religious movement of that temple in addition to the temple. I think the best solution is changing the word "defunct" to something more specific to buildings, such as "unused", or "inoperative".
An article's "Introduction" is generally the lead, would "Background" or even "Korean shamanism" be a better section title?
Unclear which source the mythology table is derived from overall.
The table should say "Korean name", not just "Korean (assuming it is the name).
"was formed by a schism"->"was formed following a schism"?
"The Gungdang bon-puri also features Cheonjado". There should be a note that Cheonjado is the same god as Naeoe-cheonjado-manora, as there is in the next section.
"The god Socheon'guk emerges from Jeju Island, while the goddess Baekju-manura is born in China." You should clarify which gods are not part of the 12.
Can a general statement be made along the lines of "The names in the painting are shorter versions of the names in the bon-puri"?
The lead says "unmarried woman" (women before I edited), the body says "unmarried girls". I suspect women makes a bit more sense, but either way it should be consistent.
"tucked under a green skirt". Unless I'm missing something, that's a red skirt.
"Naewat-dang was destroyed for good in 1882." Any indicators of what destroyed it, and how the paintings survived this destruction?
"and reflect the importance of the dynamic acts of eating and devouring in Jeju village-shrine myths." It is unclear to me how fluttering coats reflect eating.
The infobox image could use a caption, with at least the name of the relevant god.
The "Gime of sacred snake" caption should be expanded to explain what a gime is, as the explanation in the text is in a different part of the article.
Overall a very good article, the above concerns are relatively minor. In general, well written, verifiable, seems broad and focused, neutral, stable, and has appropriately captioned images. Putting on hold. CMD (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis:, thank you for taking this on.
"As Naewat-dang is now defunct" has been changed to "The shrine was destroyed in the nineteenth century", which should be much clearer.
The "Introduction" section has been changed to "Background".
The citation of the mythology table has been clarified, and "Korean name" has been added.
"was formed by a schism"->"was formed following a schism", done.
The detail about Cheonjado has been clarified, and added "according to the narrative, Cheonjado is born to two deities, neither of whom are worshipped at Naewat-dang specifically".
Added "the names of the gods as given by the paintings correspond to a specific element within the full names given by the bon-puri.
Changed "unmarried girls" to "unmarried women".
The skirt color has been fixed, that was a mistake on my part.
There are no descriptions in the sources about why and how Naewat-dang was destroyed. The Korean word does mean purposeful demolition, usually by the government. I have changed "destroyed" to "demolished", but "demolished by the state" seems speculation (although it's the most likely answer). The paintings survived because the shaman took them home, which I have clarified.
"and reflect the importance of the dynamic acts of eating and devouring in Jeju village-shrine myths" has been changed to "reflect the dynamism of the divine characters in Jeju village-shrine myths", which is a better summary of the source.
Gime has been clarified as "paper representation" in the caption.
Caption has been added to the infobox.
Thank you again, and apologies for the delay!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Glad to see you back. Another good article. Best, CMD (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)