Talk:Government of Japan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

@TheInfernoX: Sorry about the delay, let's get started.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead

No need to italicize "pre-war" or "post war". Done
The first usage of the word "post-war" is unecessary. Done
Everything in the lead should be in the body. That is not the case, however, and it needs a rewrite.

Body

No need to italicize "nominally" or "actual power" Done
Too many duplicate links that need to be fixed. Done
Disambiguation link to "State act" Done

Referencing

Up to half of this article is unreferenced. This needs to be fixed. Doing...
Three sources from YouTube. This source is generally considered unreliable. Done

Coverage

13 sources, seems quite small for such a large article.
Shouldn't there be some history on the government?

Neutrality

"actual power" seems unneutral. I suggest that you remove "actual" Done

Images

There are too many images in the article. Please remove some.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Hi. Sorry for the delay, I was quite busy for the past few days.

Is it okay for me to move the paragraphs in the lead to a new section like an overview with a little touch on it's history?

I'd heavily recommend to just move the history part to the body and leave the rest where it is. I think you should also add a little more on it' history (for example history before WWII).--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, can I make a new heading in the body with a title "Overview and history" and write it's history there? I can simplify the lead as well by moving it there. I think it will be better than writing onto the existing body, as it's not the main focus of the article. TheInfernoX (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is the part of the article that introduces the readers to the article's subject. Check this article for a general structure I'd recommend.

I have removed the words "actual" and some redundant images, and have replaced the YouTube sources with more reliable ones. TheInfernoX (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): I believe I have made all the necessary corrections. Can you please check? Thanks! ~TheInfernoX (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more citations, please.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): I have added the necessary citations. Can you please check again? ~TheInfernoX (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marked two more that are necessary.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Done. Citations added. ~TheInfernoX (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Thank you! ~TheInfernoX (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]