Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive3

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 by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [1].

Flag of Japan[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last FAC for this article, it has undergone a huge overhaul. A lot of material was added during that FAC, so were a lot of references. I will go ahead and break down the remaining issues from the last FAC and how they were fixed.

One user had an issue with File:Flag of JSDF.svg being used in the article and about the copyright status of the image. Well, Japanese law has a term of 50 years when it comes to publication of works by names of organizations or corporate bodies. The flag was created in 1954, so 50+1954 is 2004, so it will be public domain by age in Japan. In this case, the organization who made this flag is the Ministry of Defense of the Japanese Government. Article 13 of the same copyright law puts government laws and regulations into the public domain automatically. If you are concerned that the image will not be public domain in the USA, it will be public domain due to lack of copyright notice or registration or renewal and it was public domain in Japan by 1996. Even though some still question if linking to image will be ok or not, I been asked in the past to link to construction sheets with regards to flags to show what it looks like. The source URL's do contain the construction sheets.

Prose was a big issue to yall, which was the main reason why the article was failed. On the note page I made at User:Zscout370/nihonnokokki, User:Mheart was such a sweetheart for copyediting this article. However, several other users took their hand at it and will continue to do so.

I also changed the way references were done in the article. I participated in the various RFC's about the way FAC's are run and what should the pages look like. There are a lot of people that would like to copyedit but are not able to do so because of the template clutter or because of other issues. After seeing how the recently passed FA John Diefenbaker was set up using references, I decided to give that a shot. I decided to copy his format, but instead of having one section for books, I had a section for books and for regulations. There are still some I need to move around, but I am in the process of doing that now.

Just like before, the technical issues were resolved before I even walked over here. Alt text is present, but any suggestions to improve it will be great. No dead links (I did cut the references from 137 to about 133) and no disambigs. One user did go around and fixed any redirects that were present. Hope you enjoy it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. One external link [2] is currently timing out. No dab links. Will be reviewing the alt text tomorrow—I did see a few possible problems. Ucucha 03:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did just notice that. I am fixing that dead link at the moment. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also been working on the alt-text. As I mentioned on your talk page, I can make the basic alt-text and place them in the article so they are present. However, I am still having issues of what is considered good alt-text or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made a few edits and most alt text seems good now. Could you add a brief description of the golden symbol on the JASDF flag? Also, (not related to alt text) the article would probably look a bit better if you moved a few images to the left. Ucucha 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. I added a brief description of the golden symbol on the Air Force flag. What images do you suggest being moved to the left. I did have one or two images moved to the left before, but they were eventually removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Good. What I usually do is just alternating left and right (as at Noronha skink), but depending on the article some other possibility may look better. Ucucha 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I shifted two to the left, mostly in sections where an image directly follows another. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: 17 images; All are PD (government), PD (ineligible), PD (self), or CC-by-SA. The Attribution images have the authors listed, and the PD images are all at Commons. All images have good captions, though you're being inconsistent about putting periods at the end of the captions- don't if it's not a complete sentence. "A recent press conference" also doesn't make sense in the image in "Use and customs", as the press conference may have been temporally proximate to the war, but 60 years later it's not recent. --Pres N 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied the caption from the image page itself, but I changed recent to 1943 when the photo was actually taken. I will work on the captions now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Image caption issues now taken care of! --Pres N 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~Current ref 79, the author isn't Penn State University, it's Gregory Smits, per the home page here.~~
I continue to remain concerned about http://flagspot.net/flags/... so I'm pointing it out as a self-published site that should be reviewed by other reviewers. It's usage has been cut down, I see, which is good.
~~The Lassieur book is classified as juvenile (see here) what makes this a reliable source?~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The publisher is Penn State, but if the author is blank, then it will put the publisher at the front like it is the author. I did add the author. I know you are still concerned about FOTW being used as a citation, but many times that site is the only English reference present. I will try and remove some that have been suplimented by other English sources tonight. I am replacing the Lassieur book at the moment. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed all but two FOTW citations from the article. If the folks need a translation, they can see me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Leaving this last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but noting it's used very infrequently now. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I removed them all and either let the Japanese sources stand out on their own or found better sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness issues. I massaged a few bits of prose and there might be a bit more but there is nothing outstandingly jarring. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article is very well done, and Zscout370 should be commended for his work in bringing it to this level. Nice job. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I thought this was an excellent article all-around. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the lead:
- "various" adds nothing
- remove "to the Japanese" (it's obvious); this avoids the repetition.
- remove comma after "celebrations"? And possibly after "occasions".
- "following" possibly better as "subsequent" or "ensuing".
- remove "respective"

Further:
- Consider enlarging the 1930s pic, which is useless at that size. 240px?
- Caption: "The Hinomaru being lowered in Seoul, Korea, on the day of the surrender, September 9, 1945." Try "The Hinomaru is lowered in Seoul, Korea, on September 9, 1945, the day of the surrender.
- Commander caption: "explains" rather than "is explaining".

I haven't read it thoroughly. The prose is of a reasonable standard, I can say that much; but it might be scrutinised further over the next weeks/months. Tony (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Present-day perceptionS
  - Snagged them all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.