Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:22, 12 April 2007.

Japan[edit]

previous FAC

After User:John Smith's asked me to reconsider the old nom, I've decided I might have been a bit too hasty in removing it, so I'm going to give it a fresh nom. Raul654 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as before Fg2 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as before. I made the self-nomination last time. John Smith's 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great article, but you are too ambitious by only nominating it on the FAC. The GA people would perfectly give help... igordebraga ≠ 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Numerous unsourced paragraphs. Seven in the history section alone. Zleitzen(talk) 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Concerns dealt with.-- Zleitzen(talk) 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen, during the previous FAC lack of citations was raised. The person that complained, SandyGeorgia, tagged everything she felt needed a citation. Furthermore there have been no complaints about this. So please add some citation tags where you think they are needed - thanks. John Smith's 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. I tagged samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, rather than comment on old discussions (his objections have now been dealt with), could you please address the action taken to resolve your objection? John Smith's 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, John, but I believe it was you who brought up an old discussion, inaccurately. I did not tag everything that needed citing in the article; I don't usually do that. I tag samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 13 paragraphs in the history section, seven of them go without citations. Going down the page, there are many more uncited paragraphs. To add citation tags to every piece of information that goes unsourced in these paragraphs would make a mess of the page. Here are examples of unsourced details from each section to give you an idea;
  • "The Nara period of the eighth century marked the first emergence of a strong central Japanese state, centered around an imperial court in the city of Heijō-kyō, or modern day Nara."
  • "There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices."
  • "Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration."
  • "The Ryūkyūan languages, also part of the Japonic language family to which Japanese belongs, are spoken in Okinawa, but few children learn these languages."
  • "Post-war Japan has been heavily influenced by American pop music, which has led to the evolution of popular band music called J-Pop. Modern Japanese music generally uses Western instruments, scales and style."
  • "Golf is popular in Japan, as is auto racing, the Super GT sports car series and Formula Nippon formula racing."
-- Zleitzen(talk) 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations have been added since my concerns above. But there is still much uncited material on the page. Near the top of the history section it reads: "Despite early resistance, Buddhism was promoted by the ruling class and eventually gained growing acceptance since the Asuka period." Without citation. Rather than me chase around picking individual examples, it might be better to give you some time to ensure that every claim is attributed to a source from "Unlike previous recovery trends, domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth." to "The fusion of traditional woodblock printing and Western art led to the creation of manga, a typically Japanese comic book format that is now popular within and outside Japan." -- Zleitzen(talk) 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More unsourced statements below:
  • "…with a secret ballot for all elective offices."
  • "The liberal conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power since 1955, except for a short-lived coalition government formed from opposition parties in 1993"
  • "The Prime Minister of Japan is the head of government. The literal translation of his Japanese title is "Prime Minister of the Cabinet". The position is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being designated by the Diet from among its members, and must enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives to remain in office. The Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet and appoints and dismisses the Ministers of State, a majority of whom must be Diet members. Shinzo Abe currently serves as the Prime Minister of Japan."
  • "Japan's court system is divided into four basic tiers: the Supreme Court and three levels of lower courts. The main body of Japanese statutory law is a collection called the Six Codes."-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with those points. John Smith's 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More in the foreign policy and military section. These could really do with reference notes elaborating on the issues alongside simple source details.
  • "with the US-Japan security alliance serving as the cornerstone of its foreign policy."
  • "It is also one of the "G4 nations" seeking permanent membership in the Security Council."
  • "Japan contributed non-combatant troops to the Iraq War, but has subsequently withdrawn forces from the region."
*Territorial disputes paragraph - no citations
  • "The forces have been recently used in peacekeeping operations and the deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq marked the first overseas use of its military since World War II."-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations added. I do not see a need for more references there - readers can follow the citations or the blue-links. John Smith's 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the last statements that I believe need citations:

  • powerful enterprise unions, the guarantee of lifetime employment in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories.
  • Recently, Japanese companies have begun to abandon some of these norms in an attempt to increase profitability.
  • Unlike previous recovery trends, domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth.
  • The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) conducts space and planetary research, aviation research, and development of rockets and satellites. It also built the Japanese Experiment Module, which is slated to be launched and added to the International Space Station during Space Shuttle assembly flights in 2007 and 2008.
  • Most public and private schools require students to take courses in both Japanese and English.
  • Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice.
  • The earliest works of Japanese literature include two history books the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki, and the eighth century poetry book Man'yōshū, all written in Chinese characters.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. John Smith's 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citations have been very well provided, I have checked them all and they correctly ensure the verifiability of the statements. I would still like a citation for "powerful enterprise unions, the guarantee of lifetime employment in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories". Remember that references can be quite expansive and descriptive. If an issue is quite detailed such as the above, it may be appropriate to create a long reference note that combines a number of references. When that is verified satisfactorily I will remove my oppose.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last citation added - other text trimmed. John Smith's 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Help me out. I'm looking at India, a featured article. In the lead section there are three paragraphs; only one has a citation while the other two have no citations. In Etymology, one paragraph has citations; the other does not. History: five paragraphs, zero citations. Government: three with and two without. Politics: no citations in the two paragraphs. Military and Foreign Relations: one paragraph out of three has a citation. Geography: no citations in three paragraphs. Flora and Fauna: Here for the first time the cited paragraphs outnumber the uncited 2:1. Economy has a citation in each paragraph. So does Demographics. But Culture, six paragraphs long, has no citations, even though it makes clear claims. Here are some:

  1. India's culture is marked by a high degree of syncretism
  2. Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana. They often have a narrative form and are usually infused with devotional and spiritual elements.
  3. The Indian film industry is the world's most prolific
  4. India's national sport is field hockey, although cricket is the most popular sport in India.
  5. Chess, commonly held to have originated in India, is also gaining popularity with the rise of the number of recognised Indian grandmasters.
  6. Traditional Indian family values are highly respected, although urban families now prefer a nuclear family system due to the socio-economic constraints imposed by the traditional joint family system.
In this comparison, Japan fares very well. Fg2 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on this page previously, there is generally no requirement for citations in the lead, as the lead is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Raul654 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India passed FA in 2004. It wouldn't pass now due to lack of sources and will be added to Featured Article review. Standards have risen significantly, and it is imperative that every detail is sourced for the credibility of featured articles and wikipedia as a whole. If a major piece of information has absolutely no attribution - how are we meant to know it is reliable? We're not. Unreliable articles should not be evidence of wikipedia's best work. -- Zleitzen(talk) 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not imperative that every sentence be plastered with a footnote. Please stop picking out random fact statements to be cited and provide some valid arguments for your suspicions of factual inaccuracy. A citation doesn't make a statement true; good reviewing does, and what you're providing here is not a good review, just nitpicking. So put that footnote checklist away for a second and come up with some detailed criticism. "I didn't know that" or "someone might not know that" isn't a valid reason to demand a page number from a book you're not going to read anyway.
And before we descend into the murky depths of interpretation of verifiability policies, let's take look at two the of the examples given as "unreliable" statements:
  • There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices. – This is obviously a common knowledge and hardly something unique to Japan. Has anyone questioned it? Would anyone (not wearing a tin-foil hat) have reasons to question it?
  • Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration. – It's another way of saying "Japan has launched stuff in to space". It's like asking for a citation of "Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia".
The rest of the claims also appear to be mere random statements that all seem like common knowledge to anyone with a minimum of experience with Japan and Japanese culture. They're statements that don't really qualify as anything "likely to be challenged".
Peter Isotalo 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peter. Zleitzen, I think you are maybe being too strict. You cannot have a citation for everything - it is too much to expect and would look quite ridiculous. As far as I can see all the important points/paragraphs have citations. And as Peter said a citation doesn't make something true. I could add a citation for a book that existed, but if I gave a random page number that has nothing on that, how would you know? Apart from the unlikely circumstance someone had that book and decided to look it up, it would fly in under radar. So please be more reasonable in requests for citations. Generally the ones that are here support all the other points - it would be quite mad to have to repost them for every point made. John Smith's 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it common knowledge that "Japan has universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices"? that "domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth"? That "Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration"? That "Ryūkyūan languages, also part of the Japonic language family to which Japanese belongs, are spoken in Okinawa, but few children learn these languages"? I didn't know any of these pieces of common knowledge, and when I asked my children, who read wikipedia a lot, they didn't know either. If an article stated "Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia" you can bet that people would want a citation for that as well. And they'd be right. An article that represents the best of wikipedia would have these facts cited to verifiable sources. An article that doesn't verify these facts is not the best wikipedia can offer I'm afraid. Sorry.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that specifically the first statement does not need citations. Do we have a source to say that adults over specifically 20 years old can vote, and that it's done with a secret ballot? Look at Voting age, most countries seem to set the voting age to 18. If we are to make assumptions, we would assume that the voting age in Japan is also 18. Also, even in the US, it wasn't until 1971 that the voting age was lowered to 18. But I can't find that other statement about "headway" into space anymore. Maybe it's been revised since it was first mentioned. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out there is a citation for the voting age being 20. I removed the "headway" statement about aerospace because I wasn't sure - I changed it to focus on space exploration and gave a citation. There also citations for the Ryūkyūan languages bit. So all those points have been addressed. Guys, please always remember to look at the article when you talk about it - things change fast. John Smith's 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a superb article that deeply discusses all aspects of the country. Its a useful resource for all readers and it deserves to be recognized.YaanchSpeak! 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as before. Lovely nice big article. BilabialBoxing 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as before. Problems with WP:MOS, problems with lengths of certain sections, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support as before. --WoodElf 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as before. --Endroit 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering why people are so ready to support this FAC. There are clear WP:MOS problems. One good example is the recurring blank space in the History section, something I've fixed myself several times. It comes back almost every other day, and at the time of my comment here, it has re-appeared.[1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This recurring blank space in the history section does not happen with Mozilla 2.0. With IE6, this happens only when the browser is broad enough that the image Image:TodaijiDaibutsu0224.jpg comes just after the {{Infobox Country or territory}}. --Kusunose 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to bump my screen resolution down to 800x600 before the blank space will disappear when my browser is full-screen. Surely, we expect your average IE users to use better than 800x600 resolution by now? Aside from that, there are other WP:MOS problems, too. Some of the sections toward the bottom, the ones that often get ignored, are a bit short - for example, the Technology section, considering the impact that Japan has on the global consumer electronics market, the Technology section doesn't even mention consumer electronics. And there is still a lot of unnecessary use of parenthesis, especially when done in order to spam Japanese terms only to define them in parentheses. And I just noticed that some of the books used as references do not list their ISBN numbers, and a big chunk of the Climate section does not have any inline referencing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am using 1024x768 - I haven't had any problems. John Smith's 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if it's because there's too many pictures or because too many are right aligned, but there are an awful lot of large blank gaps in the text. Aaron Bowen 09:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a high resolution computer screen so it's even worse for me. Aaron Bowen 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over it again, making a few changes - I can't see any gaps. Have you tried making adjustments yourself? John Smith's 09:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blank spaces? BLANK SPACES??? How low can we go to oppose a FA candidacy because of blank spaces???? PS. How come I dont see any blank spaces on my comp? --WoodElf 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The blank space issue seems to be browser-based, and at the moment seems to be gone. This is a problem of image placement, and to note, I don't see the same blank spaces on any other FA class articles (not that I've looked at all FA class articles), so those articles must be doing something right as far as image placement is concerned. However, I still think there are some WP:MOS problems, the short lengths of the often-ignored sections in the bottom, especially that the Technology section doesn't even mention Japan's consumer electronics industry; some of the books in the references do not have ISBN; and there's some unnecessary usage of parenthesis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs are not that important - academically they are never required, so I don't see why an FA should fail on that basis. As to length of "often ignored sections" - remember that in the past the article was much longer. One of the largest complaints was it was too long. So they had to be cut down - the headings on top redirect people to the full article. The Japan page is to give people a summary of the country, not tell them everything there is to know. There is so much stuff the article could go into but really there is no space for all of it. John Smith's 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the Japan article is good, for me at least, and I think the editors have done really well. There's an exceptional amount of information in a very condensed format which is exactly what the article should convey. Regarding ISBNs, WP:CITE states that "The ISBN of a book is optional." However, If I were writing a featured article, I would opt into to adding them rather than opt out. Having the ISBN makes it a better article - which is the point of the exercise - its also really easy to copy and paste an ISBN into a google search and get exactly the book you were looking for.-- Zleitzen(talk) 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I do not have access to most of the books, so couldn't say what the ISBNs are - I would be guessing that I was putting in the one that points to the right edition. John Smith's 10:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Overall I was very impressed with this article. I have a few small niggles that I'df like to see either addressed or explained prior to support though
  • Archaeological research indicates that people were living on the islands of Japan as early as the upper paleolithic period. Upper Paleolithic should be in caps, no? As should by a mesolithic to neolithic
    • Capitalized all of them. --Kusunose 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1639, the shogunate began the isolationist sakoku ("closed country") policy that spanned the two and a half centuries of tenuous political unity known as the Edo period. could be clearer as to what this means without having to follow the link (ie exclusion of Europeans and other foreigners). Isolationist is slightly less extreme than sakoku.
  • In 1937, Japan invaded other parts of China, precipitating the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), after which the United States placed an oil embargo on Japan. Single senetnce pargraph can be added to next paragraph perhaps?
    • Added it to next paragraph. --Kusunose 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Science and technology; The concentration on technology and electronics is kind of stereotyped perhaps? Jaspanese names always crop up when I do lit searches on marine biology, for example.
  • There doesn't seem to bea section or much mention of the Japanese environment, environmental law and protection, and foreign conflicts with reagrd to fishing, whaling and logging. Japan is rather idosyncratic in these fields (a great deal of teh countries forests are protected, yet it is responisble for a great deal of logging elsewhere) and it desreves a mention.

This article is almost there and I look forward to it being featured. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm not sure there is room for expansion of content due to the long length of the article - the last two things you mentioned would be better added to the sub-pages. John Smith's 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I still have serious concerns about the reliability of sources used. (I also believe External links should be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT). I will come back over tonight and tomorrow and post a detailed list of my concerns about sources that don't appear to meet WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is greatly improved over the version that appeared at FAC a few months ago. I'm concerned about the following sources (Examples only, working from the bottom of the article):
    The amount of advertising on a site has nothing to do with its reliability. The New York Times main page has at least 11 ads (not counting the 3-4 ads for their own content, services, and branded products), yet they are considered reliable. The Japan Guide is a well-regarded niche guide for information about Japan. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe, thanks for your comments. However as I have now replaced those links it doesn't matter so much - I would appreciate it if you could discuss Sandy's other objections below. John Smith's 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add my voice to Sandy's concerns over the use of web-links over more stable and authoritative sources. Tony 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, on the "alnaja" site, you're misunderstanding the point of it. It's not the site but the pdf file that is important, which is a copy of a league table produced by the Times. If you check the pdf file you'll be able to see its reliable.
  • As to the rest, I've replaced broken links, changed existing links, added new info as requested, etc. If you want to tag citations for review can you please mention the number of the citation - it's difficult to track them down as you've listed them. John Smith's 00:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improving. In addition to the "alnaja" site, you have a PDF copy of an article hosted at The Japan Forum. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Do these have copyright permission? I can't find an indication of permission to reprint; perhaps it's in Japanese. Also, I only provided samples from the bottom of the footnote list; there still seem to be some needing review at the top. As a sample, can you explain Imperial Japan from https://filebox.vt.edu/admin/ I can't verify authorship or reliability. There are others; these are samples only. It may be possible to find more durable, reliable hard print sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think copyright can apply when it is information published into the public domain - the Times league tables are supposed to be distributed amongst the public. John Smith's 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SandyGeorgia has not responded to my requests to further discuss her objections. Does this mean the FAC can proceed? It seems rather unfair to block it because someone will not review their objection. John Smith's 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. I have had another look, and made several edits as samples only of what I see as a pervasive problem on this article; the failure to use high-quality reliable sources (which are certainly available for this topic), failure to identify publishers (which are often personal websites), and possible copyright issues (for example, two different personal websites linking to a copy of a Discover magazine article). I really don't care for the argument that I'm the only one objecting, since most of the time, I'm also the only one looking closely at the sources. It is a disgrace that reviewers support articles for featured status without looking closely at 1c. If you need proof of how large this problem is at FAC, you can find it near the top of the FAC list today. I continue to oppose; Japan is not a Pokemon article or an article about some pop culture starlet; there is no reason that it can't rely on high quality sources. If I'm chasing windmills to try to get other reviewers to examine sources, so be it, until such time as I give up. I continue to oppose on the basis of 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) PS: last time I worked from the bottom of the footnote list for samples, while this time I started at the top. Rather working the top or the bottom, the density of problems found is the same. I have given samples only; addressing the examples and saying "problem solved" does not solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, please tone down your language - to say it is a "disgrace" is actually in some ways a personal attack on everyone who supports the article whether you mean it or not. You have one way of looking at the nomination requirements, but that does not mean everyone has to look at it in the way you do.
When I said you were the "only" person objecting, I meant that your objections were what I regarded as being the only meanginful ones - I was paying you a compliment.
Your objections are noted, and I'm sure everyone is doing their best to resolve problems as they are found. However I still disagree with your opposition, however justified you feel. John Smith's 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: To the greatest extent of my knowledge, this article maintains neutrality and is suitable for being a featured article. --Defender 911 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I agree with the comments before mentioned. It's a complete article, it contains images and is neutral. --Gustave - May I help you? 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'd have to agree with what the user above me said, its a good complete article. Takedashingen620 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a superb article that deserves to be recognized!!! Bonsai! Max 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Japan&oldid=1138464452"