Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:54, 30 August 2015

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 10:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow! You picked this one up remarkably quickly! Thank you for your interest. I recently rewrote this article and, among a few other things, one of my primary focuses was to try to keep the article under 10,000 words in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies which state that articles should be between "4,000 to 10,000 words". Ultimately, the rewritten article was a little over 8,500 words, so there is definitely room to add in additional content if needed.

Also, when you reviewed the article, "Death toll of the Nanking Massacre", you stated that "Citations should be provided at the end of every sentence". However, I subsequently cleaned up the article Iwane Matsui based on that principle, and during the good article review the reviewer repeatedly insisted that "You do not need to have a citation for every sentence" and made me delete most of the citations. When I rewrote the article History of Japan, I made a point of doing it the way my last reviewer wanted, so as a result not every sentence has a citation at the end of it. If you want I can insert additional citations, though for the record there are some reviewers who vociferously object to doing that.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I cite every sentence. It makes it easier to verify information. You don't have to cite every sentence, as such. But either attribute a paragraph or section to a citation or citations at the end of the paragraph or section, or cite every sentence. As long as there is consistency. I aim to get this one done by the weekend, it's quite a long article and will take time.  — Calvin999 18:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• The history of Japan includes the history → Repetition of 'history'
• to the Jōmon period → When was this? Readers may find it easier to place when with a year or years.
• The Heian period → When was this?
• Since the 1990s → Comma after 1990s
• Soon after the start of the Jōmon period → Comma after period
• in Japan as a result contributed → Remove 'as a result'
• Genetically modern → Comma in between.
• During the subsequent Kofun period most → Comma between period and most
• period begins in → period began in
• new religion of Buddhism, → Link Buddhism
• In 587 the → Comma after 587
• a Confucian-inspired → Link Confucian
• 712 and 720 respectively. → Comma after 720
• the de facto rulers → I think de facto is usually italicised
• Upon seizing power Yoritomo → Comma after power
• government in Kamakura → Kamakura
• became mere puppets → Remove 'mere'
• The article is generally well written. As highlighted above, you need to watch your placement of commas in sentences, as it affects the structure of the sentences in places.
• More categories could be added to the bottom of the article I think. Surely not just one exist
• I assume Prince Shotoku.jpg is still okay to use despite copyright expiration?
• Same for Genji emaki TAKEKAWA.jpg
• Can Mōko Shūrai Ekotoba.jpg be enlarged? it's quite small.

Outcome

On hold.  — Calvin999 17:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999 - I believe I have made the necessary corrections. However, could you explain what you mean by "still okay to use despite copyright expiration"? I thought that copyright expiration was good because the images were thus free to use on Misplaced Pages.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I just saw copyright expired and wonder if it's still okay to use, but I've seen it says public domain now, so it must be. Thanks for being prompt. Passing.  — Calvin999 19:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This GA review was a farce

The article has sourcing issues, as clearly indicated by the massive fustercluck developing on the talk page. Several places where two sources are cited, they actually contradict each other and are being synthesized inappropriately. I have only looked at the very early part of the article, but Henshall is being radically misrepresented there -- is he being similarly misrepresented the 84 times the article cites him? Why did the reviewer not look into this? WP:GANO? specifically says Good Articles must be "verifiable with no original research". Calling this article in its current state a "Good Article" is a failure on the part of the community. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)