Talk:Lady Saigō/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A few spots that could use some clarification in the prose
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
a couple of spots that need citations
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General:
- ~~I'm assuming that we need to italicise shogun and have so copyedited, but if that was not intended, please feel free to revert.~~
  - I think it depends on how largely you believe it has entered the English language. Is it as common as geisha and sake? Anyway, I'm fine with shogun in italics.
- ~~Cull out all of the links in the see also section that are already mentioned in the article body - see also is for links not already in the article.~~
  - Done.
Early life:
- "Though Lady Saigo's birthname does not appear in any surviving documents from the time, there is good evidence it was Masako (昌子), but this name is very rarely used." is in the name section but you state her birth name as definitely "Tozuka Masako" in the early life section. If it's not totally certain, the early life section needs clarification to make that clear.
  - Fixed.
Relationship:
- ~~"However, Oai already had the attention of Ieyasu, which undermined the ambitions of the other women and drew their resentment." is opinion and should be cited.~~
  - Re-worded with additional references.
- "While Ieyasu's marriage was arranged for political reasons, and many of his later concubines were chosen in the same spirit, it is thought that he chose his relationship with Lady Saigo, as there was no political advantage to it, and loved her above all others." is very long and convoluted and the last phrase appears to be just tacked on. Suggest reworking this into two sentences.
  - Re-worded. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If Hidetada was the third son, with the execution of the first son, wouldn't that make the second son the heir apparant? Needs some sort of explanation why the second son wasn't considered the heir apparant.
  - Fixed. Wrote short explanation in a footnote. I was trying to keep the article focused on the topic person, and also, since much has already been written about Tokugawa Ieyasu, I didn't want to be too redundant.
Death:
- ~~"...it has been theorized that she was poisoned by a maidservant devoted to Ieyasu's legal wife, the late Lady Tsukiyama." theorized by whom? And this is opinion and needs a citation.~~
  - Re-worded and cited.
After death:
- ~~"By 1603, Tokugawa Ieyasu had recovered Sunpu Castle, completed his unification of Japan, and had become shogun..." this is jarring, as we're never told he lost the castle after entereing it in 1586?~~
  - Done. Again, I was trying to keep the article focused on the topic, but I guess I did zip through a bit. Added a couple sentences by way of explanation. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the strikeout, since I don't know the template for the checkmark, though I'd be happy to use it. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looks like just the one thing in "after death" to go? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just resolved that last item. Any other recommendations? Boneyard90 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]