Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:28, 7 October 2015

History of Japan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

In August this article went through a massive, one-user rewrite with almost all of the sources being replaced and much of the wording of the article being altered. It passed GA ten days later having been reviewed by a user who had never edited this area before and apparently didn't examine the article very closely (see below), with the only other input being from the user who rewrote it and nominated it. The sourcing of the article was only briefly touched on in the context of whether every sentence should have a citation. This seems like failure to properly assess for GA purposes, given that one of the criteria for GAs is that they be "verifiable with no original research".

There are many sourcing and verification problems with the article, as demonstrated by the examples below:

In the space of three weeks there have been several protracted edit wars, a lengthy talk page dispute and even two ANI threads over this article. This in my opinion should not be the case with a GA-class article.

Pinging involved users: @CurtisNaito: @Nishidani: @Sturmgewehr88: @Curly Turkey: @Rjensen: @Calvin999: @Vivexdino: @MSJapan: @Phoenix7777: @TH1980: @Signedzzz:

Virtually every sentence the above users and I have checked was found to contain a factual error or a misrepresentation of a cited source. It would be an enormous project to check every such instance and bring the article to legitimate GA status. Not pretending it already is a GA is the simplest and most realistic place to start, especially given that preserving the text as it was at GA review was likely an impetus for the recent edit-warring.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• The GA review was totally inadequate. Obviously a lot of work has gone into the article, but it has issues with focus and scope—it's a long article on an topic that has a lot to be covered, and the editors don't seem to be able to agree on how much detail is too much at this scope. The article should give a birdseye view of the topic and not dwell on details such as disputed numbers that belong in the (many, many) subarticles; such detail at this scope only hampers readability and detracts from much more important details. The prose needs a very thorough copyedit: as a random example, there's "Following the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912, Emperor Taishō acceded to the throne."—which is at least twice as long as it needs to be, and perhaps is another big reason the article is so long Note: this is a single random example to demonstrate a kind of problem the article suffers from in general. The lead has gotten a lot better than it was, but it needs more than tweaks—it needs to be rethought and refocused. I won't comment on the sourcing issues as I haven't looked at them, and judging sources at that level is beyond my expertise. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding article length, Misplaced Pages recommends that articles be between "4,000 to 10,000 words". At the time it passed good article review, the article was 8,800 words and while it has expanded over the past month to 9,180 words, it's still below the limit of 10,000 words. Although there may not be a current consensus on how much detail to include, the large majority of users who have edited the article since it passed good article review have been trying to expand it in some way rather than reducing its size. Apparently there is some consensus for expanding the article, which I think should not be a problem provided we stay under 10,000 words.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No the article is longer than it needs to be because of out-of-scope details and verbose writing, and this hampers readability. The length in itself is not the issue I'm indicating—if it were 12,000 of focused meat there'd be no issue. I was trying to improve the prose myself, but—well, things happened and I've withdrawn my services, an experience which only convinces me the problems won't be solved easily. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages recommends yes, but naturally for an entire history of major country article you'd expect it to be easily 10,000 words. The most important thing is "Does the article provide a neutral, balanced, accurate summary of each period of Japanese history which is very informative and easy to digest?" If 12,000 words are really needed to effectively do that, and no section is too big and difficult to read, so be it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• It does need work, as it seems the GA was somewhat "forced." I am in the process of combing my library for material, and I know we have editors asking for access to JSTOR, etc. for other materials. We can definitely reassess this ourselves, but I have a feeling the final product is going to be very, very different, so it might be wise to delist anyway, because it's not going to be a short process. Ideally thisd should be a survey-type article, and it isn't at the moment. MSJapan (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - No one has yet found any actual problems with the sourcing used in the article, neither the current sourcing nor the sourcing that was used when the article passed good article review. Most of these alleged errors are actually just the inevitable result of summarization of the sources' content. Henshall dated The Tale of Genji to 1004, so I simply opted to go with that date rather than explaining the other possible dates which are already discussed in the novel's own Misplaced Pages article. Such a minor issue, which has already been changed through editing, is no reason to downgrade the article. Though the overwhelming majority of Hijiri's criticisms are just these sort of minor quibbles, others can't even be explained by this. Hijiri objected to the article saying that "the Yayoi culture was established by invaders from the Asian mainland", even though both Jared Diamond and Kenneth Henshall, the sources which were cited, concur with this. Henshall says, "Around 400 BC... Japan was effectively invaded. Immigrants arrived in number from the continent, immigrants different in appearance and culture from the Jomon people." Regarding Jared Diamond, a majority of users on the talk page, including Hko2333 who was not pinged, concurred that his article was a reliable source. Given how blatantly inaccurate or trivial all of Hijiri's criticisms are, we have to ask whether he nominated this article for reassessment more out of anger than reason.

Hijiri's initial declaration that he would reassess the article was appropriately dismissed with the comment Deliberate harassment of Curtis by Hijiri88. Even before Hijiri88 had even checked the references he had already somehow concluded that "I'd bet that every single reference to Japanese literature in your rewrite of the article contains an obvious error or misreading of a source that I could point out". He made harassing comments on the article talk page concerning the good article nomination.

Because of his behavior, Hijiri was explicitly warned that "the goal of a reassessment is to not to punish those responsible as you may be hoping, but rather to improve Misplaced Pages by helping the article deserve its GA status."CurtisNaito (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal comments here. Nothing in my delisting rationale is based on a desire to "punish" anyone. Pinging User:Prhartcom to correct the above misquoting of them -- they didn't comment on "behavior" and neither did I above. Neither should you. The misquoting of me does not even merit a response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't misquote you. The problem is that you haven't found any problems with the article as it stands.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. This will probably be remembered as the most frivolous good article reassessment in Misplaced Pages's history.TH1980 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You took the words "I'd be that every single reference to Japanese literature in your rewrite of the article contains an obvious error or misreading of a source that I could point out" out of context by saying that this was "before had even checked the references": I had clearly already checked the several references I listed above. Also, by repeating your previous IDHT "you haven't found any problems", you are explicitly violating Dennis Brown's moratorium on ANI. I have informed another user of this and it will soon be investigated. I have no intention of violating the moratorium myself, so I'm keeping this user-conduct discussion to the bare minimum, and will not reply more than twice. I'll leave it to the community from here. Farewell. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: are you kidding? We bickered for weeks and had an ANI thread over the sourcing issues of this article. And that was just over the sourcing used for the GA review. Since it centered on Jomon-Yayoi sources, I'm sure we haven't even scratched the surface yet. You should stop the WP:IDHT behavior before you dig an even deeper WP:HOLE, and don't bring up Hijiri's "harrassment" without owning up to your own faults. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no problem with the way the original sources were cited, but there was disagreement over certain dates and details and so ultimately the original sources were replaced with different sources. Just because one reliable source doesn't give the exact same date as a different reliable source is no reason to reassess the article, especially since the article has already been changed to reflect what the objecting users wanted. In a reassessment, discussion should focus on alleged problems with the article as it is, not alleged problems which no longer exist.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: again, seriously? Evidence was presented, here and at the talk page, and we argued and edit warred over it for weeks, and you're still denying it? And about those "alleged" problems which no longer exist, since they were present in the assessed version of the article, the article shouldn't have been passed in the first place and doesn't deserve GA status. And the sourcing issues were from only two sections of the whole article; once we start looking through other sections I'm sure we'll find more. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - I have checked most of the citations in the article myself and I didn't see any problem with them. It is Hijiri, rather than CurtisNaito, who has been misreading the sources here. At any rate, the purpose of a good article review is to point out existing problems with the article in question and fix them. Hijiri is only pointing out "problems" which he already "fixed" through editing. If any real problems have crept into the article since it passed the good article review, then we should work together to fix those. But no one has found any actual problems with the article as it is.TH1980 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@TH1980: again, your dispute with Hijiri is blinding you. We found plenty of problems with the sources used in the GA reviewed version, which were solved with no thanks to you or CurtisNaito. The article "as it is" has not been investigated outside the initial focus of the Jomon-Yayoi period, but is sure to have similar sourcing issues. Saying that " have checked most of the citations... and didn't see any problem" (after it was proven that there were sourcing issues) means your opinion of the current article's sourcing has no merit. If you wouldn't pick the wrong side simply because it isn't Hijiri's side every time, maybe we could actually "work together to fix" the article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we should be working together to improve the article, and changes of varying quality have been made to the article since the good article review. However, it was more a clash of opinions than a clash of sources. I myself checked the book by Kenneth Henshall and can attest that it was cited properly. Vaguely claiming that the article is "sure to have similar sourcing issues" is not a basis for good article reassessment and not likely to be true in any case.TH1980 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Henshall was not cited properly: "about 1004" became "in 1004", " poetry" became "Japanese poetry", "immigration" became "invasion", Henshall's dubious summary of the scholarly consensus on the Man'yōshū's date was taken at fact value. 100% of references to Henshall I checked involved him being misquoted; how many of the places I was unable to check misquoted him? There are almost certainly several dozen more such instances that could be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that your errors here have been corrected enough times already, but based on Henshall the year 1004 was accurately cited and Henshall did mention the invasion of peoples from mainland Asia. I think even CurtisNaito mentioned that "Japanese poetry" could have been replaced with "Japanese-produced poetry", but whether or not that change was for the best it has already been made and so it is not relevant to this review. I checked the same book you checked, but my conclusion is that 100% of the citations (which I have looked into so far) are accurately represented in the article.TH1980 (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, your disruptiveness is going to bite you one of these days. No-one here believes you've read the sources. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The book by Henshall is not hard to acquire and is available in many libraries. I've been going through and checking the citations, but I haven't found any of the alleged problems stated above.TH1980 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for verifying the accuracy of the citations TH1980. If the sourcing issue has now been dealt with, I suppose the only issue remaining to be resolved is a little copyediting.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If no one else is going to step up to the plate then I will do it. I think another user already started copy editing the first part, so I'll give the remaining two thirds a thorough copy edit.TH1980 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If Henshall is available on JSTOR I will look it up myself tomorrow. Either way, if the source says "about 1004" and you put "in 1004", you're making stuff up. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, "about 1004" and "in 1004" are not the same. Henshall said "about 1004", a rough date with which no mainstream scholar disagrees; our article, at the time of its GA review, misquoted Henshall as saying "in 1004" -- an overly specific and very narrow date with which no mainstream scholar agrees. And yes, you and CurtisNaito have claimed several times that "Japanese poetry" was meant to be read as "Japanese-produced poetry", and that it is my fault for misreading it as saying "Japanese poetry"; but the fact is that even if that was the case, wording that is vague enough that the most intuitive reading is the wrong reading is just as much of a fault as being outright wrong. Regarding 759: the article cited an inadequate, tertiary source and so contained misleading information, which should have come up in the initial GA rebiew. The fact that the initial GA review failed to recognize these and many other blatant errors and misrepresentations of sources means it needs to be undone pending an actual thorough examination of the article and its sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - I don't know why anyone objected to the use of the Jared Diamond article, but it doesn't seem to matter anymore. The rest of the article is in good shape and I don't see any reason to change its status. Hko2333 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hko2333: Did you even read the above discussion? Jared Diamond isn't even mentioned, except briefly as a fringe source written by a non-specialist for a popular magazine. And yes, such sources are inappropriate for Misplaced Pages in general and unbecoming of GA-standard articles in particular. But what about all the places where good sources are being misquoted ("about 1004" became "in 1004", " poetry" became "Japanese poetry", "immigration" became "invasion") and the factual errors that were introduced by using such sources when they were less-than-ideal (Henshall's dating the Man'yōshū's compilation to exactly 759 is not accepted by mainstream scholars)? How many more such instances of misreading of sources exist that we haven't located yet? I checked only references to classical literature and every place I checked had such an error. Also, can I ask who you are? You made several edits to Japan-Korea disputes back on September 22, 2008, and then disappeared for seven years -- you wouldn't have anything to do with the massive sockpuppet problems in the Japan-Korea historical dispute area, would you? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. I read the above discussion, I just didn't see any decent evidence for what you're saying. I don't know whether every single citaiton is accurate or not, but the only ones you mentioned are either minor quibbling with dates or else have already been changed.Hko2333 (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Revoke GA status - given that the single reviewer, who never edits in this topic area, appears to have reviewed this article as a favor and had obviously missed the glaring sourcing issues, and the only other supporter of the GA review was the editor who rewrote and nominated it, this article shouldn't have gotten GA status in the first place. After weeks of arguing, edit warring, and two ANI threads, the sourcing issues in one section have been resolved. If, and only if, the sourcing issues are completely fixed and the scope of the article is corrected before this GAR is closed, then it may keep its GA status. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

While I agree that for such an important, extensive article the GA review should have been a lot more thorough, in looking at this article it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA. I'd need to read it fully to judge the prose quality and examine the sources to assess whether or not User:Hijiri88 is right about the sourcing issue, but given the hostility here I'm not sure I want to. He seems to be an experienced editor, so might well be right. I'm not very knowledgeable about Japanese history so couldn't say if it is truly an effective or accurate overview, but other than the sourcing issue it does seem to have a summary of each period, and for the main article you'd not expect any real detail anyway as it's a basic outline of the entire history. It is for Good article too, the articles don't need to be really that comprehensive. I agree with Hijiri though that for such an article it would be better for more editors to collaborate, and rather than rush towards promoting it, that it is done in a way different editors can all approve of it. All I can say is that it is a core article which really does need to be brought up to GA status, so if there are sourcing problems I'd urge towards fixing them rather than an immediate delisting unless the problems are genuinely so extensive they'd take months to fix.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Thank you for your input. I do think that fixing the article's problems with sourcing (as well as scope -- the article at present is woefully bare and tilted towards 20th century international relations) will take months at the current rate. The reason for that is that even minor tweaks are immediately reverted my the user who initially submitted it for GA, with the rationale that the changes don't have "consensus". Talk page discussion with said user is fruitless, as he keeps bringing up the fact that his version of the article passed a GA nomination. Most of the problems with the Jomon/Yayoi period coverage were solved, but that took weeks of edit-warring, talk page gridlock and even two ANI threads. As long as the original nominator keeps repeating that his version is a GA the only way problems can be solved is with incredible strain. Revoking the present (unwarranted, I must stress) GA status is therefore the first step to facilitating actual improvement of the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks '88. So you think there's OWN issues at stake here as well? That can make it very difficult to correct things and see progress. Perhaps the best thing would be for somebody to work on a new draft at Misplaced Pages:History of Japan without interruption and then a neutral administrator can review the changes and update the article without being reverted? I appreciate the effort gone into promoting it, but no editor should dismiss the concerns of other experienced editors on an article as high profile as this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a reason you favour the Misplaced Pages namespace over Talk:History of Japan/redraft, though? Posting the rest on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Either will do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only edit warring ever to take place in the article regarded whether or not to use a single article by Jared Diamond. The majority on the talk page were clearly in favor of including the source, but ultimately it was replaced with other equally reliable sources. No other edits wars ever occurred. I think a major problem here is trust issues. I verified the accuracy of all the citations, but Hijiri doesn't believe me. Another editor named TH1980 also verified the accuracy of many of the citations, but Hijiri doesn't believe him either.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: cut the WP:IDHT act. We edit warred over removing the Diamond source, then over tagging the source as unreliable , then whether Henshall should be used for that sentence as well, then over you adding Diamond to another sentence , and then over verification of Weston and Kofun . The majority was not in favor of keeping Diamond because there was no majority, and Nishidani, from the "minority", replaced the unreliable source with a reliable one . You say you verified the sources, but you're also the one who misrepresented them. TH1980 is simply saying or doing anything that he thinks would frustrate Hijiri88, and is only a part of this discussion, and your "side", because of Hijiri88. Stop trying to make this an "us vs them" dispute. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The only real edit war involving numerous reverts was over the Jared Diamond source. Though there was good reason to believe that Diamond was a reliable source, the alternative sources that were used instead are good enough.TH1980 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are there for others to decide what a "real" edit war is, and the sources that replaced Diamond weren't "good enough", they were better by far. And I did assume good faith, of course until disruptive editing was proven. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from the GAN reviewer, Calvin999

Keep I deemed this article as worthy of being passed during its good article nomination process; it is well written and very focused. I think there is a case of harassment going on here by the GAR nominator, of which I know cases have been raised at ANI. I haven't read the barrage of text on this reassessment in detail, but Sturmgewehr88 your comment about me caught my eye. I have reviewed many, many history related nominations had you bothered to check, thank you very much, as I am interested in history. And I am insulted and offended that you have implied that my review was done as a favour.  — Calvin999 09:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Revoke

When I first noticed the factual innaccuracies in the article I just started correcting them as usual, and advised on the article talk page that a GAR would be an unnecessary distraction. I have since changed my opinion, based on the large amount of work it has taken to correct most of just the first two sections, which leaves me in little doubt as to the magnitude of the task remaining, and the review was not ideal. zzz (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Delist – The article needs the attention of an expert. I did a quick source review spotcheck (and can provide details on request). This article does have some sourcing and verification problems. After reading the comments of editors Curly Turkey, MSJapan, Signedzzz, and many more whom I trust above, I believe it is possible the article is not GA worthy. There is no shame in delisting; one mistake does not a failure make. Many more opportunities to improve this article exist. My thanks to those that are committed to improving it. (Note: If it is helpful: Diff of old and new version) Prhartcom (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I finished my copy edit of the article a few days ago. I corrected the spelling and grammar and improved the clarity of the text.TH1980 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Check out the edit history for the last couple weeks to see just how much effort TH1980 has put into this supposed copyedit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, what is your problem? If you want the page copy edited to your exacting standards, do it yourself. Be my guest, in fact.TH1980 (talk)

Everyone on this page knows what the problem with you is. What are you trying to provoke? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite a number of users, including Curly Turkey and TH1980, have made improvements to the article and, as far as their copy editing goes, I think that the large bulk of the article has already been quite well polished.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: except for the sources. @Prhartcom: which sources did you check? Have they been corrected? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am re-checking my spotcheck now. I have just completed formatting all of the book sources in the References section as {{cite book}}, providing their ISBN and Google Books links. As nearly all of these books are partially available online, will others please spotcheck also? Prhartcom (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have completed some new spotchecks. When the topic of reassessment was raised, this was the diff from the old article to the version that was inadequately reviewed and needed to be delisted. Since then, this much work as been done to the article. Much work has been done on this article since the reassessment took place, and therefore there may be hope for this article. During the hour or so I did these new spotchecks I came up with a few observations and questions. I don't necessarily need answers to my questions; I am generally trying to find out of the article deserves its GA.

Why are references 1 through 21 to sources that are not books listed in "Select works cited", then references 22 onward are mostly to the books listed in "Select works cited"? Why such a clear dividing line? Is it solely because the books listed in "Select works cited" not cover the Paleolithic and Jōmon period and the Yayoi period? Why aren't the books listed in references 1 through 21 in the "Select works cited" list? Why is it a list a "select works" instead of the article's entire bibliography? For example, the bibliography could acutally list Richard Sims' book, Richard B. Frank's book, and Janet Hunter's book.

Why is reference 77 "Henshall, 75–101, 217" referenced eight times? Are eight passages of the article really sourced on page 217? When I cite a source as pinpoint specific as "75–101, 217", I am probably referencing something like that only once or twice, and for the other six or seven passages I would create new citations that reference the actual page numbers. The same thing with "Henshall, 15–17, 22, 228" that is referenced six times and "Totman, 576, 580–584" that is referenced four times.

When I tried doing spotchecks of specific facts stated in article passages, I found a combination of possible laziness, possible deception, and accurate citations, as much of the time I could not find the facts claimed in the article passages in the cited sources. Other times I could indeed find the correct citation. I spotchecked just a few examples. (I spotchecked others last week but regretably, I lost those notes.) It would be better for readers wanting to learn more and for editors doing spotchecks if the article's citations of specific pages really referenced that specific page of the sourced fact, without so much sharing of the citation with multiple article passages (in other words, customize each cited reference, as this is being implied).

• "The population working in agriculture shrank from 75 percent in 1872 to 50 percent within a decade of the end of the Meiji period."
  • The facts from this passage were indeed located in the cited source (Hunter p. 3), although the source said "1920" instead of "within a decade of the end of the Meiji period" (which may be correct?).
    • Meiji ended in 1912, so "within a decade of the end of the Meiji period" is not wrong. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Their government devised and implemented the far-reaching Taika Reforms which nationalized all land in Japan, to be distributed equally among cultivators, and ordered the compilation of a household registry as the basis for a new system of taxation"
  • "Taika Reform", "nationalize", and "household registry" are never mentioned once in Perez, let alone on pages 18-19 as cited. The concept of reform, nationalized equal distribution, and registration by household is not mentioned on pages 18-19 (What is mentioned on those pages has nothing to do with what is in the article passage).

Perez was accurately cited. As noted on page 19, "Using the Chinese model, the imperial government instituted the Equal Fields System that reapportioned agricultural land every six years according to a national census." According to Henshall, who gives more details, this was known as the Taika Reform.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• "One particularly large and well-known Yayoi village is the Yoshinogari site which began to be excavated by archaeologists in the late-1980s."
  • "Yoshinogari" is not mentioned on Henshall, pp. 11–15 as cited but is mentioned on p. 227 as cited.

• "The Yayoi technologies originated on the Asian mainland. There is debate among scholars as to what extent their spread was accomplished by means of migration or simply a diffusion of ideas, or a combination of both. The migration theory is supported by genetic and linguistic studies."
  • "Yayoi-derived" is mentioned on Henshall pp. 11–15, 227 one time on page 12 but "Yayoi" is otherwise not mentioned in the reference as cited. Mention of a scholars' debate or disagreement is not mentioned in the cited source.

This is accurately cited. Henshall page 12 says "Around 400 BC... Japan was effectively invaded. Immigrants arrived in number from the continent, immigrants different in appearance and culture from the Jomon people. They were lighter and taller, with narrower faces. Their culture included technology such as bronze and iron, and was also more rice-based than that in Japan. There is great diversity of opinion over the nature and scale of this immigration, and even the motives and origins of the immigrants... Genetically, in modern Japan 54 per cent of male lines and 66 per cent of female lines show Sino-Korean origins, reflecting this influx. In material terms, both Korean and Chinese artefacts are found at this time. The period when this change started takes its name from the Yayoi district in Tokyo..." See also the other citation, which says, "Vigorous debate about the nature of the transition between Jomon and Yayoi continues. Given the locations of the earliest sites and the similarities between their contents and those of contemporary sites on the Korean Peninsula, the mainland provenance of the Yayoi technologies is clear. But scholars disagree about whether their spread was the result of the introduction and diffusion of new ideas or of the migration of large numbers of people. The latter explanation is supported by anthropological and genetic studies of modern inhabitants of the areas in question and by the work of linguists examining the origins of the Japanese language."CurtisNaito (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment and recognize the tremendous work done to this article. I regret that it appears I am nitpicking it with my spotcheck.

Based on what I've seen in the endless discussions over this rewrite and subsequent GA, I recommend that the GA reviewer of this article take a break from reviewing articles to GA for awhile and I recommend the re-writer and nominator of this article take a break rewriting and nominating articles to GA. As editors, we are better off if we put our ego aside and listen to and respect the advice of challengers, who may be abrasive, but are ultimately only trying to help the article. It's the article, not the protection of our reputation or ego, that is the most important. If our work is ever challenged, we need to recognize that the challenge is ultimately going to help the article. We should respect the challengers. We do not resist a challenge simply because we feel we must protect ourselves. Doing so does our reputation no good, stirs up a lot of bad blood, and wastes a lot of people's time.

Challengers should respect the writers/nominators and reviewers as well. They should not be intentionally abrasive. Doing so will not achieve the purpose they seek. In a perfect situation, all three editors trust each other and work together to produce a greatly improved article. This takes place daily on Misplaced Pages.

The article may still need to be delisted, if those editors who I know are experts in this field say it should be. On the other hand, much work has been done to improve this article during the reassessment. I am in favor of keeping it a GA article if possible. Therefore, I suppose I recommend that it keep it's GA. Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom: I think the answer to your first question is that there are multiple editors on this article, and that the sources to the prehistory section were done by editors who focused only or primarily on that section, and added references in the way they found most convenient or familiar. I don't think uniformity of citation style is required for GA. I asked CurtisNaito about the "Selected works" this, too, and didn't really get an answer I understood. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom:I'm often criticized during good article reviews for including too many citations for certain sentences, so this time I grouped my citations to many sources like Henshall together by time period. I used one group of citations for Meiji, Taisho, Showa, etc... in order to reduce clutter. However, I will separate out the ones which you recommend separating, such as Yoshinogari. I will also add the rest of the books to the bibliography.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey thank-you for that; I agree with you. As we all know, what's important is good, neutral, stable, broad, well-written, and especially verifiable prose; every passage of the article correctly cited to a verifiable source. I wonder if the article is there yet? Prhartcom (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, I absolutely believe you, and I agree that if you believe a citation to a source is correct, it absolutely is correct. Please double-check and ensure that each of the citations in this article are correct. You've done a lot of research and writing on this article and I respect that. I can help you with citation format (here is one example) if you wish; just ask me. Prhartcom (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So far I haven't found any example of improperly cited sentences, but I'll continue working on the article. Incidentally, TH1980 has access to a copy of the work and verified most of the citations already.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, it's good to hear that you believe Verifiable is being handled. Now let me ask about Broad in its coverage. The title of this article is certainly broad. Is the article? Curly Turkey and Signedzzz, is it? Prhartcom (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly broad—the question is whether it's comprehensively so. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you know of anything specific which needs to be added? I should have time to make the additions today, if you know of any.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple editors were making lists of things on the talk page. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, for a while I was thinking about just adding in everything from MSJapan's list, but then you said that "Many of the proposed and actual additions are totally out of scope". Did you think most of the list or all the list was totally out of scope? I intend on adding in the ones which are not totally out of scope.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess so far: copy editing-mostly Done, source verification- Done, broad in scope- Done, comprehensive-?

For the record, I think the article is comprehensive enough already, but if anyone has an idea for expanding it, I or another editor will get on it.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I also am interested to hear if the article is comprehensive (a Featured article term; we really mean the GA term Broad in its coverage). The article does appear to have broad coverage in many topics as CurtisNaito says, but I am not an expert. What do others think? We can wait and hear from others such as @Signedzzz:, @MSJapan:, @Sturmgewehr88:; any involved editors. Is the article covering all of the topics that a GA-quality article with this title should cover? Prhartcom (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

but then you said that "Many of the proposed and actual additions are totally out of scope": that wasn't specifically in reference to that list, was it? The point is, the list was proposed, and then utterly undiscussed. Why are the proposed additions going totally undiscussed? I mean, look at how much "discussion" is going on on that talk page, and how almost none of it is discussing the validity or apporpriateness of the proposed additions, etc.

Also, copyediting is not done. I began merely a first run and had it sabotaged. The copyedit didn't come anywhere close to being finished (and TH1980's was superficial at best).

Prhartcom: some editors feel there are important topics that have not been touched on at all, particularly pre-20th century topics, giving the article a decidedly Western perspective. I don't think I have quite strong enough a handle of either Japanese history or the cutoff of GA criteria to judge whether it has achieved sufficient balance for GA. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with CT, copy editing is far from finishing and there are missing pieces still. Also, source verification is  Not done. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88, it is  Done as much as possible. You are free to also do your own spotchecks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Until my edits just now, Ryukyu was mentioned once ("Japan consolidated control over Hokkaido and the Ryukyu Islands") and Okinawa was never mentioned. I've just now added most of the relevant information about Ryukyu, but there is still no mention of Okinawa, which I will probably add soon. The Battle of Okinawa and Okinawa's reversion to Japan need to be mentioned at a minimum. This is is yet another example of why this article should be delisted from GA status. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good article reassessment