Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fujiwara no Teika/archive1

Fujiwara no Teika[edit]

Self-nomination: I feel I've addressed peer review's concerns, I've cleared up the last area whose factuality I doubted, it's well-written, the last few people on IRC who I solicited to review had little to say; there are a number of nice PD images, and it simply strikes me as FA quality. That is all. --maru (talk) contribs 20:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, does "sika bakari/tigirisi naka mo/kaFarikeru" really not bother you? Plus the other things I said on PR (bar the image, which you've done), plus the lead section needs that extra paragraph. Someone who actually knows something about old ja poetry is kinda needed, I'm way outa my depth on actually assessing the content of the article. --zippedmartin 04:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, the "sika bakari" thing is not my fault- I was only faithfully reproducing what was said here. As for your PR suggestions, I did what I could. I managed to get a partial translation of one of the images, but it was too bulky to fit in a caption, and not particularly relevant- what was relevant was the calligraphy, not the contents.

Why does the intro need another paragraph? --maru (talk) contribs 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm not suggesting anything's your 'fault', but little consistancy and polish issues like that do matter - sources need editing, not just regurgitating. Intro largely needs another paragraph because it doesn't provide an adequate introduction/summary for someone unfamiliar with the subject, but see also WP:LEAD. The other issue though, is that the content isn't terribly easy to verify, so bar *real* peer review, featured-ness is largely trusting Brower, and your interpretation, when it comes to correctness and comprehensivity. --zippedmartin 06:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Problem is, I can't polish that particular example. The hiragana or whatever simply aren't in a form I can edit, parse and associate with the proper line, as the tables demand. One needs to actually understand Japanese for that; I've asked over on the Japan Wikiproject for some help in that respect, but who knows how well that will work. I'll try to work on the introduction, but I'm not too sure what I can add without stealing stuff from the regular biography section. As for sources, it's not so bad as you make out. I really rely on Brower only for the court politics and Go-Toba's poetry sequences bit; the rest either comes from the other references (such as Brower and Miner) or external links (much of which is also confirmed by one of Brower's books). --maru (talk) contribs 06:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- Lead should be expanded to two or three pars.
- Consider putting brief summary under all empty section headers
Tuf-Kat 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Seems a little disjointed. Images need to be rearranged so they don't bunch up and displace the text. Style a little off in some sections. Lacks sufficient citations (although it does have citations, some assertions/facts are not cited). Exploding Boy 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Huge problem witht the look of the refs. Tobyk777 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excelent article. Of course there is always room for improvement, but this article as is qualifies to be featured. --Cat out 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]