Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
HILLBLU lente.png
Scan for Requests for Peer Review
Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg
WikiProject Japan (Talk)

Founded
March 18, 2006
(8 years, 1 month and 4 days ago)

Shortcuts
WP:JAWP:JPWP:JPNWP:WPJWP:JapanWP:JAPAN

Project parentage
Countries, Geography

Nuvola apps kedit.png Peer reviews for Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan

Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for living persons and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for others.) before a peer review.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the WikiProject.

Adding a new peer review[edit]

To add a nomination:

  1. Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this.
  3. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
  4. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.
  5. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the Requests.

Archives[edit]

None so far.

Requests[edit]

Kumi Koda discography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so I can see what needs to be improved for it to become a featured list, and hopefully develop a template for other Japanese discographies to become featured lists.

Thanks for any comments! --Prosperosity (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd be glad to help. To get right to the point, I think the lead paragraph is too heavy. Comparing notes with Nirvana discography (a featured article), the lead paragraph should try to succinctly summarize her successes and release history (e.g. instead of saying what charted how high on which charts, you could say, "Such-and-such album spawned singles which became successful"). Granted, between a pop singer with a long and fruitful career and a grunge band that lasted only a few albums, there's almost no comparison, but I think there's a way to trim the fat here. The lead paragraph has lots and lots about chart positions and certifications - all of which should be summarized and all of which is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. From what I gather over at Nirvana discography, the lead paragraph of an article such as this should have a basic release & label signing history with general descriptions of success, without going into the technical details. Hope this helps! Good luck! LazyBastardGuy 16:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
How is that? I kept the Two Million certifications bit in there since they're very rare, but got rid of the rest. Everything that's left is mostly explaining things peculiar to her discography. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Almost there! Again, though, bits like these:

"Take Back" peaked at number 18 on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales chart,[1] and "Trust Your Love" in 2001 reached the top spot on the same chart.[2]

should be paraphrased. The data you're presenting in the prose is already there in the rest of the article so it's not needed here. As for the two-millions bit, I would at least move that, say, to the end of the second paragraph since chronologically-speaking it seems to work best there. LazyBastardGuy 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The positions aren't actually in the discography article! I figured it was a little silly to have a column for just her first two singles charting on a Billboard subchart. I've removed the positions bit and just mentioned their release now. How's that? --Prosperosity (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha, silly me... I guess I'm just used to seeing those on discography articles. I'm mostly concerned with just the lead paragraph, although I do believe if the chart positions aren't mentioned in the body of the article then they should be. It's not necessary to have a whole column for them, but if they are important enough they can be noted somehow (using {{ref label}} if necessary; see Nirvana discography#Retail singles for examples). The way you mention them now implies a certain significance, which I think is sufficient. Overall, I'd say that's about all I've got to say here. Good work! LazyBastardGuy 05:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing before I go: If you use the notes as I suggested, and you want to pre-empt people coming along and adding a whole unnecessary column, add a hidden note that there are not enough singles that appeared on that chart to warrant the inclusion of such a column as it would be a waste of time. Something like, "Until she has more singles that chart on it do not add a column for peak positions on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles chart". Although, if other singles of hers did chart on it then there may be enough of them to warrant such a column. But I'll leave that up to you. Adios, and good luck with the article! LazyBastardGuy 05:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It turns out that the chart listings aren't even in the citation given as the Hot Dance Singles Chart isn't published on the internet, so I just got rid of it anyway! Haha. Thanks for your advice! --Prosperosity (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fiona Graham[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

There are questions regarding whether the article deals appropriately with the subject's professional identity as a geisha in the light of Japanese cultural norms. Issues include the title of the article, which arguably should be her professional title and her age which is customarily not mentioned.

Thanks, User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This article is nowhere near ready for a full peer review which, per WP:PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Among the more obvious deficiencies in the present article are the following:-

  • The article does not say what a "geisha" is - surely an essential piece of information?
  • The prose is choppy, anecdotal and lacking a clear chronological flow. The article thus appears as a collection of incidents rather than a proper biography.
  • Some sections, e.g. "Academic career", are undeveloped. Others are inappropriately titled; for example, the section headed "Geisha training" has practically nothing in it about training.
  • The "Wanaka Gym court case and fine" section appears detached from and unrelated to the rest of the article
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should provide a summary overview of the main article, rather than a few introductory statements.

If you are seriosly interested in producing a quality article, I suggest that as a preliminary to its proper development you take a look at other biographical articles, to get some idea as to what is required. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Fred, this is not really the right venue for your questions, which I'm also concerned about, but before I take it to the article talk page I'm going to email you first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Toyohara Chikanobu[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the high quality and current state of development in this article makes it ripe for commentary by a wider spectrum of reviewers.

Thanks, Tenmei (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comments (taking into account good article criteria): Looks like a decent article which suffers from some stylistic issues.

  • A major part of the article consists of lists and (beautiful!) image galleries of his works. Neither lists nor image galleries should go into a good article. You can solve this issue by moving those lists into a Works by Toyohara Chikanobu (or similarly named) article and only write a short summary about his works (in prose!) here.
In my opinion this is the main problem with the article. Some more minor issues:
  • The lead section needs to be expanded considerably. It should summarize the major points of the rest of the article.
  • References generally go to the end of a sentence (not inside a sentence).
  • If possible (i.e. if known) his non-artist bio could be expanded to include birth/death place, parents (names, professions,...), circumstances of death, childhood,...
  • Is the translation/romaji for "應需豊原周延筆" correct? Shouldn't it be Toyohara instead of Yōshū?
  • There are too many very short paragraphs. They should either be expanded or merged with others.
  • Japanese dates ("Meiji 8", "fourth and fifth months of 1886") are probably not necessary in an English language article.
  • "furumekashii/imamekashii" needs an explanation.
  • I'd reduce the amount of Kanji: only have Kanji where it is essential such as for Chikanobu's signatures or for Japanese names that don't have a wikipedia article yet (e.g. Yōsai Nobukazu (楊斎延一)). Don't put Kanji when there is a wikipedia article (e.g. Boshin War (Boshin sensō 戊辰戦争)).
  • In my opinion it is not a good idea to use "[1], [2],..." in different ways: once for references and once for publishers. Possibly something like <ref group="pub">Publisher one</ref> for the publishers could avoid this confusion.
  • Not sure what the guidelines for inline external links are (e.g. Victory at Asan). You might have to deal with them.
bamse (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for these specific suggestions. As a small first step in the collaborative editing process, I did created a sub-article -- List of works by Toyohara Chikanobu. Looking forward, perhaps the investment of time in distinguishing what needs to be retained or restored in the main article will clarify some of the other good points you make? --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comments: I removed this article from the GA listing, since there is a simultaneous peer review. I thought I would list my suggestions here. Once the suggestions here have been dealt with, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. Below are some specific suggestions.

  • The lead section is too short, and should summarize the entire article; see WP:LEAD for more.
  • It's wonderful that there are so many PD images of this artist's work. However, there are simply too many pictures. One can visit commons to see a comprehensive list of all Chikanobu's works. Images should be used to demonstrate what is in text, but should not be extended galleries.
  • Many paragraphs are a line or two, or are a single sentence. A more flowing prose style would improve the article a great deal.
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, Japanese is only required for names or proper nouns. A sentence like "This was his "art name" (作品名) sakuhinmei" is confusing for people who don't speak Japanese, as they may wonder whether sakuhinmei is his name, or a word for a name, or what. It would be better to simply say "This was his art-name."
  • The list of selected works should be translated into English, and, like the images themselves, they should be incorporated into text about the artist's periods and styles, rather than listed separately.
  • Footnote 1 lists the entire text of his obituary. Is this translation in the public domain, or is it copyrighted?
  • Footnotes should be complete sentences (see 11 and 12), and should be in English (see 3).
I hope these suggestions are helpful. – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving the unintended problem I caused when I listed this article for review in two venues.

Your specific comments and questions are gratefully acknowledged. In addition to suggesting directions for further development, your feedback offers an impression of the ways in which the current state of the article may have been construed by others. Again, thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Obi (sash)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

  • I have just completely rewritten it as a translation from the Finnish version
  • the article has a Good Article status in fi.wikipedia, so I thought this might not be far from attaining the status either and I'm actually aiming for it — my only real concern is the language since while I can get my points across and get fancy with prose, I haven't had much exercise in writing encyclopaedic text. There might also be embarrassing botches since the article is so long.
  • the texts are longer in Finnish, so the pictures may need to be made fewer. I'd like other people's opinions on what should be ditched.
  • about the references and footnotes: I added them in the original Finnish version so they should be all right

Thanks, Pitke (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Obi (sash)/archive1.

Peer reviews