# Talk:Life replacement narratives

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating such an informative and well sourced article. Happy editing!.
Gazal world (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Life replacement narratives/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 08:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Due this being a long article, the GA review shall be broken into the same sections of the Article, in order to make matters manageable. 

Is it reasonably well written?
The Lead opens with explanation of the three shamanic narratives, all of which exist in oral literature.
A brief synopsis of the three narratives is given along with the significance of their importance in the religious context because they establish the principles and efficacy of shamanic ritual.
Relationship of these narratives to folktales and to other shamanic myths is referenced in the Lead.
 
Here endeth the review in part, the part being Lead; the next section of the review shall be Nomenclature.  

Is it reasonably well written?
The nomenclature section is important due the possibility of the article having one or another title, being Life replacement narratives or Life extension narratives.
There is reference to the chasa veneration narratives of the South Hamgyong Province, which is distinct from the three earlier narratives referenced.

 

 
Here endeth the review in part, the part being Nomenclature; the next section of the review shall be Narratives. 
This is a work in progress, not complete. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
This section makes it clear that the narratives are chanted by shamans, with different terms in religious activity. For clarity, the Lead, where it makes reference to oral narrative also include a statement that shamans are chanting these narratives in religious rituals.
The introduction links to Yama in Buddhism; there are so many names and versions of Yama in East Asian religions; the link suffices given the explanation of messengers and Korean beliefs not found in Buddhism generally. It is a good clarification.


### Menggam bon-puri
Note clarifying Menggam is useful in understanding complexity, and variance in application of the term to deities as well as this tranche of chanting.
This is a very large section of the article. This is the one recited by the jeju shamans. It is large because of the variations in the story. It serves to indicate how the chasa are appeased, and how they bring about life extension. The roles of the skull and its worship are adumbrated succintly.  There is also a further clarification about the purposes the Menggam bon-puri ritual is put to. Checking of references shows verification and validity of the material included. This is tight and concise description of an oral narrative that exists in 10 or more versions. Challenging work, well done, thus far.


### Jangja-puri
The Jangja-puri is the life replacement narrative of the Jeolla shamanic tradition - it has 38 versions.
A useful set of slokas describe the sins of the miserly rich man, jangja
For an oral narrative that is found in 38 versions, the variations of the actions of chasa are well summarised!
It is noted that Jangja-puri is sung during the funeral ritual of Jeolla shamanism.


### Honswi-gut
It is noted Honswi-gut narrative belongs to South Hamgyong Province which is now North Korea;
The variations in the narratives of Songnim-dong, I-dong, and Sama-dong are given;
It is noted that shamans have fled North Korea and this ritual may no longer be practiced there.
Considering that these narratives exist in many variations, the account of the shamanic life replacement narratives are all rendered well, if in brief.
 

 
Here endeth the review in part, the part being Narratives; the next section of the review shall be Religious significance. 
This is a work in progress, not complete.--Whiteguru (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
Religious Significance is thought to be the benefit brought to (the devotee)(the supplicant) by practice of ritual correctly, addressing the correct divinity, and maintenance of rituals over a period of time. Here, we are brought to an interesting intersection, feelings of compassion and empathy, that both gods and humans are thought to share. This is the function and fruits of life-exchanging myth put to practice. The proper form of worship can bring benefits to both the chasa and to man.  These are excellent illustrations of significance.
The inclusion of chants and strophes from the ()janga) are good illustrations of both moral values as well as the values of exchange between the human and the deity. The included chants are appropriate.
 

 
Here endeth the review in part, the part being Religious Significance; the next section of the review shall be Theories. 
This is a work in progress, not complete.

Is it reasonably well written?
I am not altogether convinced that this section of the article serves its purpose. It seems to resolve to retelling of different forms of the life-replacement narratives as proposed by scholars, rather than examination of theories presented by scholars.
This raises the question (in my mind) if this section of the article is necessary and needful. Discuss.
@Whiteguru: You make good points about the "Theories" section lacking focus. I've merged it with "In other literature" into a larger "Connections to other narratives" section, which suits the content better, and streamlined some of the wording and content to make it more coherent. How does it look now?--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Karaeng Matoaya: It is reading much better and flows more easily into the matter of life extension narratives.
 

 
Here endeth the review in part, the part being Theories (name changed to Connection to Other Narratives); the next section of the review shall be End Matter. 
This is a work in progress, not complete. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It is Broad in its coverage?
References to similar works and similarities between traditions - along with dissimilarities, are given.
Good references on jangja-puri with supplied translation noted.
Wikipedia link to Jeju National University cannot be admitted as a reference.
Links to KISS (Koreanstudies Information Service System) cannot be verified.
This link to (Choi Jun) fails.
Link to Kim Hyung-kun (here) fails. Second link times out.
Gubi Munhak Yeon'gu li link fails.
It seems that all links to https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch fail or time out or give a security message.
References to Shamanic epic of prolongation of life, excellent work;
The English links give excellent reference to the subject matter.
@Whiteguru: Thank you for the excellent review.
On the KCI and KISS links, that's quite puzzling. They all work for me, but I'm at Seoul right now. Maybe access to the sites is country-restricted? These are South Korean government-maintained catalogues of academic publications, so there should normally be no issue of this sort.
On the Jeju National University thing, the reference being cited is actually an MS paper from a JNU student that I have access to by way of the university I'm at temporarily. But no stable online link exists to it, which is why that particular reference has no corresponding URL. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". But the field of Korean shamanic studies is very small and this paper in particular was favorably cited by Kyoim Yun 2019, a university press-published monograph, which an admin has previously told me suffices to demonstrate an MS paper's reliability in a small field.
And again, thank you a lot for the review! :D --Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I've identified the problem: the sites use older versions of TLS which are disabled by some browsers because of potential security issues. I see that they work on my version of Chrome but give a security message on Microsoft Edge.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Karaeng Matoaya:: Yes, you are right about the TLS issue. I use Firefox, which gives the TLS message. Other software tells me not to proceed. I will accept the references as valid due a browser related security issue. The review will now conclude with a pass.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
Notes are succinct and appropriate.
References: all examined. Where they can be accessed, they are spot on and give robust details about the three shamanic chanting rituals.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
A neutral point of view is given in this article.
Is it stable?
Page is created on 4 July 2020 and has had 482 page views in the last 30 days. It has received a total of 25 edits from 3 distinct authors, and there are 49 links to this page. There is no evidence of edit warring, and of late, there have been 343 page views with an average of 16 views daily. A stable page.
It is illustrated by images and the images displayed are appropriate, maps and image of Shaman.
Overall:
Overall evaluation is good. Further result will be available upon resolution of matters raised in the references.

 

 
The examination of end matter pauses here and will be taken up anon. -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Final evaluation
A rather unusual religious practice in the Far East, is presented in an understandable manner and fashion with scholarly precision.
Article Passes GA review . Y
Thank you for the excellent review.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)