Talk:Shimabara Rebellion/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Siege at Hara Castle section, this sentence ---> "These guns fired about 426 rounds in the space of 15 days", "about" doesn't seem to be the right word, maybe, "approximately"? In the Final push and fall section, "By April of 1638" add a comma after "1638". In the Aftermath section, ---> "Matsukura Katsuie was allowed to commit suicide", was allowed?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, why are "1637" and "1638" linked? In the Start of the rebellion section, add a hyphen in "year old". The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. Dates need to be unlinked, per here.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
In the Leadup to and outbreak of the rebellion section, this sentence ---> "had aspirations of advancement", sounds like POV and might need to be re-written. In the Siege at Hara Castle section, this ---> "The famous swordsman", sounds like POV.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 05:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and done what you suggest as best I can. How is it now? Tadakuni (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Tadakuni for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]