Shouldn't this article have been named "Battle of Inabayama Castle"? I don't have the print Cambridge v.4 at home to check, or the references listed at: Siege of Inabayama Castle, but the Japanese reads "Inabayama Castle".Prburley (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sort of thinking the same thing. If User: Muneshige doesn't respond, I might move the article to the new title later this afternoon. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to belabor this but, should these battles, which are often (and maybe more accurately--but that's a debate elsewhere) called "Siege of..." get a redirect from "Siege of..." whatever? Not sure how to do the redirect thing. Thanks for expanding this. The images really rock! Prburley (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem on the belaboration. I can make a re-direct if you like. As you can see by the Japanese title, it translates to "Battle", but more importantly, I'm not sure it counts as a "siege". I know "siege" is written in the lead, but I've actually been thinking about it even before I saw your question, and I'm thinking I may remove it. I'll have to look for definitions. It was a one-day battle, so it's not what you'd call "protracted". Nobunaga showed up, made some noise and kept their attention to the front while Hideyoshi did his commando raid. So I'll look for definition and see if it even counts as a siege or if it's called such in any sources. Thoughts? Boneyard90 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As can now be seen, I changed the title to Battle of... I chose this title for two reasons: it's the best translation of the Japanese title, and on a Google search, "Battle of" gets quite a few more results than "Siege of", even though about 90% of both look to be related to video games. If anyone knows of a good reason to call it "Siege of", I'm open to moving it.Boneyard90 (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
OED. Battle: "A hostile engagement or encounter between opposing forces on land or sea; a combat, a fight."
OED: Siege: "II a. The action, on the part of an army, of investing a town, castle, etc., in order to cut off all outside communication and in the end to reduce or take it...
I'll agree with you. "Battle" is better, if kind of grandiose, for Inabayama vs. say, the Siege of Osaka, which was clearly a siege. Prburley (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
How about "storming"... In terms of the suggestion re checking Cambridge v.4, this is discussed on p40f, but v. briefly: 'with their [the Saitō of Mino] eventual defeat in 1567 he [Nobunaga] took control of Mino and the balance of Owari and moved his headquarters to Gifu Castle. From this time he began to use the seal inscribed with the slogan "the realm subjected to military power" (tenka fubu), showing his intention to unite all of Japan by military power.' Otherwise this book says (p27f) that local Gifu historian Matsuda Ryō in this book 'has convincingly argued that Nobunaga first captured Mount Inaba in 1564, lost it again to Tatsuoki in 1565, and finally took possession of the castle in June 1567 (Eiroku 10, Fifth Month)'. There's also a pointer to Frois Historia II.241. Not sure how this helps though, because it doesn't say "siege" or "battle", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in reviewing this article, which I will hopefully do by the end of the day. A preliminary check reveals no obvious reasons for quickfail nor any problem with disambiguation links or dead links, so I should be good to go! CanadianPaul 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
The "Background" section should state some basic facts to contextualize the article per WP:OBVIOUS. It begins as if it is a chapter in the middle of a book, or at least as if the reader is already familiar with Oba Nobunga, which cannot be assumed. Even a brief addition that would describe who he was would be helpful here. It also doesn't mention at all that any of this is taking place in Japan something again, though it seems obvious, should be directly stated and, since the lead cannot introduce facts that are not in the main body of the article, per WP:LEAD, mentioning these basic things in the lead alone is not sufficient.
The second half of the first paragraph in the "Background" section has no references, which I am concerned about because it does contain statements that could reasonably be challenged, for example "the Saitō civil war was perhaps too short for any active intervention to be mounted" and "At the time, Tatsuoki was young and ineffective; but as he entered adulthood, it became obvious that he would be incapable of effective leadership.". Those sound like scholarly opinions to me and should be sourced. There's a similar problem in the second paragraph of this section, with "Nobunaga was ostensibly motivated to avenge the death of his father-in-law, Saitō Dōsan, and claim his inheritance" is clearly a matter of opinion and should be cited.
Under "Mino campaign", first paragraph, "The local history of Gifu city states that in 1564, Nobunaga went so far as to attack Inabayama Castle." Since this sentence's impact relies on the reader being surprised that Nobunga would do such at thing, it would be helpful to go beyond the Wikilink and describe what Inabayama Castle is briefly, even if it's just adding something like ", the Saitō clan's main center of power" or something similar to the end. You do go into more detail later, but this statement is a little toothless without at least a basic mention of what Inabayama Castle is.
Same section, you describe Hanbei as a "frustrated retainer", but give no explanation as to why he was frustrated (or, more relevantly, why his frustration affected him declining Nobunga's offer)
Comment: I suppose I thought this would be obvious. He was "frustrated" because his lord fled in fear (a dishonor East and West, past and present). Sources aren't explicit on why he declined Nobunaga's offer, though I would suppose it was out of loyalty. His "frustration" would also stem from this loyalty to a leader who doesn't deserve it. Since it was not "obvious", as I thought, I removed the adjective.Boneyard90 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Found a reference that described his "frustration" with the clan.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The third paragraph of "Siege" should have at least one citation, as it has claims that could be challenged (perhaps that the path was "little known" or that the steepness of the slopes made the enemy think that attack from that direction was impossible etc.)
Under "Final assault", second paragraph, because you mentioned earlier that the details of the attack were not known, a citation for "At dawn, while Kinoshita's mission was in progress, the main force under Kuroda Kanbei opened up a ranged attack on the castle garrison, distracting the defenders while ground troops moved into position" would be helpful here.
Done - I might point out that what was "unknown" was up until the 25th, and the final attack was on the 26th, so there's no conflict there. But, I wasn't happy with the vague nature of "ranged" attack, and couldn't find the source where I read; the "distraction" was sort of OR, so I took those out, and put references for what was known - the castle was attacked, and Kanbei led it.Boneyard90 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not strictly a GA requirement, but I generally find that paragraphs of fewer than three sentences disrupts the flow of the article. If it would be at all possible to tack the fourth paragraph of "Final assault" to the one before it or, better yet, expand it, that might improve the flow. Same goes for the first paragraph of "Aftermath"
Done - I just thought they were paragraphs on different subjects. In the Aftermath, in particular, the first paragraph was meant to be a short concluding summary of what the reader just read, and then on to the particulars of each player. But, not too big a deal. Nobunaga and the castle were the central players, so the concluding summary blends in with the Nobunaga/castle aftermath.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Throughout the article there are occasionally places where the language used is so colorful that it borders on being a POV problem. For example, "formidable main castle" in the first paragraph of "Aftermath" sounds like an unnecessary opinion. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if you want to make the point that his allies were impressed with his capture of the castle because it was a difficult feat, you should describe the castle in objective terms and let the reader decide if it is indeed "formidable". I'm all for colorful language, but the content does need to remain encyclopedic.
Done - I would have thought "formidable" was an acceptable synonym for the previously referenced supposed impregnability of the castle, but I get your point. "Formidable" was changed to "mountaintop". Boneyard90 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is beyond the scope of GA, but I would suggest ensuring that the article complies with WP:NAMES, specifically that all mentions of an individual's name beyond the first in the body of the article be restricted to their surname, unless more is required to distinguish them from someone else with a similar surname. Normally I would do this myself but, since I am not as familiar with Japanese naming customs as I should be, I have avoided doing that in all but two obvious instances here. It may be useful, however, if you eventually plan on nominating this for FA status. Anyways, to allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. CanadianPaul 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'll get to work on your these right away.Boneyard90 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
On NAMES: I think it's common practice among Japan works (both in & out of Wikipedia) to use the given names of historical figures, especially well-known and distinctive ones, after the full name has been introduced. Examples include Ieyasu, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi. However, I just found this was not formal policy, as I thought it was, so I'll get to work on changing them.Boneyard90 (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, what to do in this situation isn't entirely clear. Having said that, it's also entirely outside of the scope GA, so it won't be a consideration for passing the article here, I just figured it may be useful to bring up in case you were looking to take it FA eventually, as it would probably be raised there. CanadianPaul 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like that should do it. But I was thinking about adding what's known of the order of battle, if you think the article would benefit from it.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like everything has been addressed, so I'll take another look at this shortly. CanadianPaul 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, everything looks very good now. I went through and did a short copyedit (there were far too many commas, which was distracting to the flow) and I now believe that the article satisfies the Good Article criteria. Some suggestions going forward:
I somehow missed your above comment, sorry. To answer it, I think that would be a good idea if you blend it into the material that is already there, which you seem to be very good at doing. It's a nice narrative as it stands, so there's no need to tack anything on awkwardly but, if you can expand the article without anything seeming out of place, I would definitely think it to be a good idea.
Regarding the WP:NAMES issue, I did notice in my review that it seems to be applied somewhat inconsistently throughout the article (sometimes he is referred to as "Oda", other times as "Nobunga", still others as "Oda Nobunga" etc.) so while this policy is beyond the scope of GA, it would be something that would be brought up in higher-level reviews. I would suggest that, whatever format is decided upon for the article, that it be applied consistently throughout.
Regarding the colorful language I mentioned earlier, it is something to keep in mind going forward. Certain spots seem more dramatic than encyclopedic (which is probably a reflection of the source material) and that may be an issue raised by higher-level reviewers, who can probably point out the more problematic sections in greater depth.
Overall, however, this article meets the GA criteria and thus I will be promoting it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! CanadianPaul 15:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! I will take your suggestions and do my best to apply them diligently! Thank you again for reviewing the article! Boneyard90 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)