Talk:Underground (Murakami book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Underground (Murakami book) was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.


  • I rewrote many sections of this, including the lead and the common themes, both of which were identified as problem areas in the 2009 GA Assessment. I also added the History section and updated the references. Any feedback would be appreciated! --Revolutionetc (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I rewrote this fairly extensively, adding references and sections, fixing grammar and spelling as far as I could plus adding an infobox. Any feedback on this would be very useful. --Phl3djo 11:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your input has been just great, thank you very much for taking your time. Could you also see the Aum Shinrikyo article? It expanded over time following arguments and debates and currently there are repetitions and somewhat clumsy parts that would benefit from evaluation. ExitControl

Great work[edit]

I passed the article for GA status. Great work here, not at all diminished by the article's size. --Dark Kubrick 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MurakamiUnderground.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:MurakamiUnderground.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Underground (stories)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

Symbol unsupport vote.svg In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 5, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
    • Common themes: This is a list, needs to be re-written in prose.
    • Title: This is consistently listed by publishers as Underground: The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche. Have you considered changing it?
    • Lead: This should be a summary of the article, but it reads more as the first section. It contains information that is not in the article and it does not cover information that is in the article. Needs major re-write.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • All sources appear reliable.
    c (OR):
    • No evidence of OR
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • Broad ...
    b (focused):
    • ... and focussed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • OK
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • OK
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • OK
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • OK
  7. Overall:
    • On hold for seven days for above concerns to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • OK I have notified previous editors and projects about this and no changes have been made, so delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


There should really be a section discussing the English translation in more detail, since it appears the book has been abridged quite a lot from the original. Jmj713 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)