Talk:National Treasure (Japan)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Will be beginning the reviee rather slowly as I have a lot of work presently and was not planning to review any articles.

Starting out I will say that at a quick glance I share the ip-reviewers concerns about sourcing, but I also understand Bamse's statement that the article is essentially a summary article of the many detailed lists that are all sourced. The main problem of this review I predict will be finding a balance between giving adequate sourcing for all "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and respecting that this article is a summary with detailed sources found in the subarticles. I must say up front that I don't think the article will be able to pass without adding further sourcing, but that it is a question of how thorough this sourcing will have to be. I would encourage bamse to look at the way in which the summary sections in an article like World War II is sourced - it has generally at least one reference to a general work on the topic for each summary subsection. I think that ideally the same should be done with this article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Categories" section I added the database of cultural properties as reference (The Agency for Cultural Affairs (2008-11-01). "国指定文化財データベース" (in Japanese). Database of National Cultural Properties. Retrieved 2009-12-15.). This is the most up to date and comprehensive reference available. It contains information about: names of categories and number of National Treasures, age of National Treasures, location of national treasures and in some cases more detailed information about a National Treasure. I am going to add more specific references for statements not covered by the database and then add references to the statistics section. bamse (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to the "Categories" section which I'd consider complete now. Am now doing the same for the "Statistics" section and should be finished by tomorrow.bamse (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to the "Statistics" section. Done. bamse (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll start the review in earnest over the weekend.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

1. Well written.

a. To me as a non-native speaker the language is not problematic. I find it easy to read.

b. I have a few doubts about whether the large table in the statistics section is MOS compliant. But this will be treated under 3b.

2.Factually accurate.

a. It provides references to all sources.

b. It has an appropriate amount of in-line citations.

c. As most sources are in Japanese I am unable to assess whether the article appropriately represent the content of the sources. Out of good faith I will have to assume that they do. I am mostly concerned about how the statistics section represents its sources - it could be synthesis, but I am unable to check this.

3.Broad in its coverage

a. it certainly does cover all main aspects.

b. and then some... I think perhaps the statistics part goes a bit off. I will suggest making a separate article National Treasures of Japan (statistics) - and move the tables there while keeping a summary in situ here. This would avoid the shadow of doubt about possible MOS and OR problems mentioned in 1b and 2c.

4. Neutral.

Definitely.

5. Stable.

Definitely.

6. Illustrated.

a. very well illustrated.

I found a possible copyright problem with the file File:Jocho-Buddha150.jpg. It claims that copyright is expired - but while this would be true for a reproduction of a 2 dimensional work of art, this is a photo of a three dimensional work of art and copyright pertains to the photo itself. I think this photo will have to have its copyright status verified or be left out of the article.

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I will replace the picture with a free image. Regarding the MOS and OR issues in the statistics section: The sources contain location and age information for all National Treasures. My work (possible OR) was to present this information in the form of a table, two maps, two timelines and calculating some percentages (for instance: Of "fine arts and crafts", more than 30% of National Treasures are written materials such as documents, letters or books. Swords, paintings, sculptures and non-sword craft items each account for about 15% of National Treasures in this category.). I don't see a problem with OR here, since it is just another way of presenting the information found in the sources. If you think it is a problem, I will move it to a statistics article together with the table. However at the moment I am not sure which information could stay and which should be moved. If you could give me a hint, that would be great. Which tables besides the large table were you referring to above? bamse (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the large table to National Treasures of Japan (statistics) and replaced the possibly non-free image with File:Byodoin Amitaabha Buddha.JPG. bamse (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just that one actually. I'll take another look sometime this week when I get more time.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. bamse (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I am very well pleased with the implemented changes. It improves readability and text flow that the large table is now gone - it also calms my doubts about MOS compliance. The sourcing is also sufficient now although it does rely on few sources that are used many times each. My two remaining concerns are with the graphical layout: the combination of many short sections with many images cause stacking problems when the article is read on a wide screen. This could preferably be handled by making the shortest sections longer (adding more detail), but also by removing some images (maybe not every category of treasure needs and image?), or combining some categories into larger sections e.g. "Shrines and temples", "Castles and residences" which would allow the photos in that section to be combined using the [option]. Also the lead should have a well chosen image. I think that after a few improvements along those lines the article will be ready for GA status.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, you mean the empty space below the texts in the categories section, right? I used this method to avoid stacking. Will try to get rid of the empty space and think of a picture to add to the lead.bamse (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thats what I meant.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll try to add more text to fill that space. On very wide screens it might still be a problem though. Already added a picture to the lead. I chose a logo since it is neutral and applies to all kinds of national treasure categories. The only other picture I could think of being neutral in this sense would be a picture of the building of the Agency for Cultural Affairs. bamse (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would have chosen a different image to the lead an article with such spectacular images should also have a spectacular image, not a neutral one in the lead. Perhaps even a small gallery as the ones found in articles about cultures such as in the infobox of Indigenous peoples in Mexico. I am not going to fail the article for stacking issues or choice of lead image - I just wanted you to consider combining some of the shorter sections.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea having a small gallery image. However I am not good at image manipulation, so I asked for help at the photography workshop. bamse (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't fancy the empty space either, I'll add a little to the shorter sections. (Don't really like the idea of combining categories.) 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Very happy to open wikipedia today and see a pretty picture in the National Treasures of Japan article. I moved the logo down to the "Preservation and utilization measures" section. I will continue adding to the short sections in the categories section and should be done with it today or tomorrow. bamse (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added text to the short sections under National_Treasures_of_Japan#Categories_of_National_Treasures. On my screen there is not much empty space left. How does it look for you? bamse (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better, I still would prefer combining some sections, but I am OK with this solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88 combined two sections, reduced levels and reformatted everything in order to reduce white space even more. On my screen there is no empty space left. Do you prefer it to the previous version? bamse (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think truthkeeper did well.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Verdict

Having reread the article one last time I find that alll my queries have been satisfactorily dealt with and I see no reason that this article should not now be one of wikipedias Good Artcles. Congratulations.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]