Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese castle

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Japanese castle

I've placed this article through peer review, took action based on the comments & suggestions received, and am ready to nominate this for A-class. There aren't yet have any A, GA, or FA class articles which are primarily my work, as far as I'm aware off hand, and as this is a very broad and important (and likely fairly popular) topic, I should like it to be able to stand out as an example of some of my best work. Thank you. LordAmeth 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

• 1a. Well written - Yes. Though I trimmed a sentence which was self-referential and unessential.
• 1b. Comprehensive - Yes. I took to add a map of the layout of Utsunomiya Castle to also show a plan/layout, which had been lacking. I also suggest writing about the multi-tiered roof designs common to traditional Japanese architecture.
• 1c. Factually accurate - Yes, conditional. I noted that many of the footnotes are not to external references, but to further uncited statements. Try to add more external references and avoid using references for making additional unsupported statements. Elsewise, the "cite" police will come after you.
• 1d. Neutral - Yes.
• 1e. Stable - Yes. Other than my dinkings around today. :)
• 2a. Lead section - Yes.
• 2b. Hierarchical headings - Yes.
• 2c. Table of contents - Yes.
• 3. Images - Yes, though I added two to support a plan/layout map, as well as one to show Kokura Castle against the foreground of its garden to support the adjacent text regarding gardens.
• 4. Length - Yes. Only 39k.

--Petercorless 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and for your continued help in improving this article. Regarding your point "1c" though, on citations, I wonder what the alternative should be. Much of this is just basic explanatory stuff which can be easily cross-referenced on the appropriate Wikipedia pages (e.g. samurai, Mongol invasions of Japan). I'd be happy to seek out citations for these things too, but I do think that they are better placed in the footnotes than cluttering up the main portion of the article, no? Some of this was added during the Peer Review process, as at least one editor said the article wasn't clear enough on specialized terms like "samurai". LordAmeth 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know you're not a big fan of citations, but there are some really, really bare patches in this one, particularly towards the end. It's quite good otherwise, but I don't think the citations are up to the level of recent A-class promotions. Carom 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you point out exactly which statements you think need citing, I'll be happy to look for sources. LordAmeth 09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added about a half-dozen fact tags, let me know if you think any of them are unreasonable. Also, in some places, it's difficult to tell whether or not the citations are intended to refer to an entire paragraph, or just a sentence; this could be clarified in the notes themselves. I do like the notes you have, however - very scholarly, very useful, I just wish there were more. Carom 18:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.