Talk:Japanese Micronesians/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC) The article generally satisfies GA criteria but:[reply]

The lead should be expanded. It should better summarize the article. For instance, a better summary of the History section is needed as well as Economy and Religion. In addition some information in the lead is not mentioned in the main text (although relations soured as the Japanese administration imposed policies that were in favour of the Japanese populace, as well as conscripting Micronesians to menial labour to support Japan's war effort in the Second World War.)
The Japanese served them some millet and sake, and left the town after a hostile encounter when the men attempted to take the bows and spear Please, explain who lived the town: Japanese or Micronesians?
At the time of German annexation, serving as the resident agent for a German trading company at that time. I do not understand what this incomplete sentence means.
~~It is better to move books that are not used as references from Bibliography to Further reading section.~~
~~Byron et al. (1921) is an error, because Byron is the first name. (should be Baker et al. (1921))~~
~~The same with Wightman.~~
~~What are the titles of publications in Harper's Magazine, Pacific Magazine, Pacific Studies, The Scientific Monthly and Pacific Islands Monthly?~~

Hi Ruslik, thanks for your inputs. I have made the necessary amendments to the article with respect to the recommendations that you have suggested;

While I have edited the lead somewhat, I was wondering how exactly you think the lead should be modified? With respect to the phrase of "conscripting Micronesians to menial labour", I have removed it after noticing that it is not in the main text. I noted in guidelines that the lead should serve as a general summary of the article. While taking your recommendations into considerations, I was wondering that the lead should cover important aspects of the article "holistically" or that it merely serves as a blunt summary and putting all points of the article into the lead with the holistic considerations relegated to a secondary consideration? Your suggestion that the religion aspect should be covered is also mentioned in the infobox, which is why the infobox is meant for! That is what I interpret it. Also, let us consider that the article is less than 40kB long, and even many featured or good articles of larger size have leads that are of this length with respect to this article. The lead can always be modified and evolved should more relevant content be added for this article. For instance you may want to refer how the lead section of Barack Obama is written, which is a Featured Article.

I simply want you to lengthen it by one paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make a rough comparison here. Quoting from a few featured articles, Azerbaijani people has 1685 characters; Ban Ki-moon has 1403 characters. Okay; that maybe slightly longer than this article of 1,347 characters. Another featured article of comparable length Richard Hakluyt (45kb), has 1,066 characters in the lead section. I did a count using [1] found at the DYK.

The guideline at Wikipedia:Lead section suggest that two to three paragraphs for an article of about 32kb is fine. This article is about 36kb. True, there are articles with an even longer character count, but I really cannot think of what else to add to the lead section; penning down something that I cannot think of will depreceate the quality of writing. Unless you think there are relevant points or inputs that can be considered, feel free to add it on. I may consider adding a little more, but I cannot think of any meaningful suggestions that can add value to the lead section as for now. Mr Tan (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead by a little bit; the character count now stands at 1430. Feel free to copyedit if there maybe any gramatical errors.Mr Tan (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some publications lack a reference author, or at least what I saw from Google books. That is where I draw the bulk content of the article from. The books that lacks the publishers name are actually those that lack an author's name; I have shifted the name of the publisher to those of the author. Otherwise, we can have a duplicate of the publisher and author's name in this format for books that lack a reference author:

"Author (publisher)", "Title", "year", "Publisher", "ISBN XXX

But what are the titles of the articles that you refer to? Ruslik_Zero 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, I found an article in Harper's Magazine titled: By H.L. (Henry Louis) Mencken "The future of English" pp. 541-548 (you cite page 542). Is this the article you refer to? Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~~Or may be you are actually citing The big Pacific push: I. The turkey-shoot of Saipan of 1945 ? Ruslik_Zero 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, no. I am refering to a suggested format for books without a author whom we can refer to. I think that you may have misunderstood what I meant. But nevertheless, consider this bibloigraphy reference:

Pacific Magazine Corp, Pacific Magazine, Volume 10, 1985

That reference above does not have an author whom we can refer to. I will have to use the publisher's name in place of the author. But in this case, if we are to put the publisher's name after the title, does it mean that we will have to cite the title instead? To prevent this break of flow, I chose to cite the publisher. If wikipedia guidelines disproves of this suggestion, and states that the title maybe cited should there be no author whom we can refer to, I have no qualms of changing. Mr Tan (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are citing are not books but magazines. Every magazine contains several articles. Every article has a title and authors. Please, provide them. Ruslik_Zero 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found information about Harper's magazine and Pacific Magazine myself (see article). Other magazines (Pacific Studies, The Scientific Monthly and Pacific Islands Monthly) are up to you. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but where am I to source for the article's name? I do not know how you can source the article's name for the title and the author on the net, or it happened that you have it in your library. I do not have assess to any of these hard copy materials for now; I am only able to take down whatever information that google books have. But do take note that some magazines contain only snippets and I cannot see the full article, which also often includes the title. I cannot simply just guess out the title. Put it simply, unless you can provide me hints or leads that I can trace the title of the relevant articles, there is really nothing more I can do for this part. Mr Tan (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. The other way is to provide alternative citations that have the same information, which I have just done for two out of three magazines. I have since removed 2 magazines from the bibliography section. If I can find a good alternative citation for citation Number 62, I will make the necessary edit. Meanwhile, if you may, I seek your help in finding the name of the relevant article, if possible? Mr Tan (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that Pacific Studies journal is freely available in the internet. Can you complete at least this reference now? Ruslik_Zero 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for providing the link. I have just made the necessary amendments. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the page number correct? I mean that the page numbers for the article are 20-32, whereas you are citing Shuster (1981), p. 36? Ruslik_Zero 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather keep the whole article in context--should future editors take more materials from the article. Done.Mr Tan (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand how can p.36 be correct? The page numbers for the article are 20-32, therefore the page number must be less than 32 and more than 20? Ruslik_Zero 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the person who showed me the online source, why don't you personally go and take a look at the cited journal? There are up to 36 pages of text, with page numbering clearly stated in the pages. I am dead sure that I have seen the correct source this time round. Mr Tan (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, their table of contents appears to be wrong: actual page numbers are 20-43. So, p. 36 is correct. Currently only lead thing is left. Ruslik_Zero 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How you want to change it? I dont understand why you are so fixed as to think that the lead is too short, given that this article is only 36kb long. Generally, most of the articles that have 2000 character word lead are usually 55kb and above in size. I have already done a relative comparison with some examples listed above. Perhaps you may want to do a character count on the lead using the software I have provided, or you expand it in the way you think may best fit. Mr Tan (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have removed at least one book that is not used for reference. I understand that you may not have noticed that there are a number of sources that are only cited once. For reasons of practicality, I do not advocate the idea of a "Further reading" section, as this can lead to other editors continuously adding a long list of books which we may not know the extent of its relevance. Who knows? The section can occupy at least half of the article in the years to come? As far as possible, I do not want to set this precedent.

(PS:Bear with me if I cannot respond within a short notice. Pls drop me a note should you reply. Thanks!)Mr Tan (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead myself. The article is promoted. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]