Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg
WikiProject Japan (Talk)

March 18, 2006
(9 years, 1 month and 3 days ago)


Project parentage
Countries, Geography

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Japan! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Japan-related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Japan}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Japan-related articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

You can jump down to get an article assessed.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Japan}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Someone put the template on an article, but it's not a Japan related topic. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of the articles within our scope and to prioritize work on these articles. Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Japan is free to add or change the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes. Editors should also note that assessments of B or A require project consensus, while GA, FA, and FL assessments have associated formal review processes that must be followed.
How do I rate an article? 
Check the assessment scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article, then follow the guidelines below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
How can I make a request for someone from the project to assess an article? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
Where can I get more details or feedback about an article?
The peer review process is one that results in a more thorough examination of articles; to ensure project members also view the article, make sure to list it at our peer review page.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
What about lists?
Lists of various kinds are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. Lists which are pure lists of links, however, should be assessed as list class, as they have no real content to be evaluated.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Assessment scales[edit]

Quality scale[edit]

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The manual of style provides additional guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each Japan-related article has its assessment included within the {{WikiProject Japan}} template, such as {{WikiProject Japan|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Japan-related articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria[edit]

Special emphasis is given to the six criteria that B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet:

B-Class article B 
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Importance scale[edit]

Priority (or importance) must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the article falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).

Type Top High Mid Low
Definition Core topics (e.g., Japan, Shinto, History of Japan). Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. High probability that non-Japanophiles would look this up. Must have had a large impact outside of Japan and be known in the majority of the world. For example, Sushi is very popular worldwide and known in most of the world. No member should give this rating to any article without first getting Project approval from the other members. Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the encyclopedia. Must have had a large impact in Japan, and had some impact outside Japan, as well as sub-articles of core topics (e.g., Edo period, Yasukuni Shrine). Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Important in Japan, but not necessarily known as well outside of Japan. (e.g., Sakurajima, Recycling in Japan). This article is of little importance as it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

Requests for assessment[edit]

2009 - 2010

Please refer to this page when determining if an article meets the individual B-Class criteria checklist items.

  • Fusakichi Omori - After learning about Doctor Omori and his rather amazing trip to the U.S. after the 1906 Earthquake, I found there was very little on the Japanese wiki, so I began his page and it was DYK on 17 May 2011. Please assess and rate. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
    • B-class/High-importance. Sorry it's taken so long to get to it. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Bonsai styles has been split off from Bonsai and significantly expanded and reorganized. I don't know if it makes a big enough change in Bonsai to be worth a re-evaluation to that article, but it would be helpful to get an evaluation of Bonsai styles. Thanks! Sahara110 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • C-class. Needs more in-line citations.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fires in Edo. Mostly a literal translation from jawiki, with some major cleanup. Request for initial assessment. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • B-class/High-importance. Assessed on 11Feb12. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Mana Ashida. Page have been around for some time but has no review yet and I am requesting for a initial assessment. Thanks!--Lionratz (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • B-class/Low importance. Assessed 7Feb12.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dodonpa - I expanded this stub class article. Please reassess! Thank you:) NutmegReport (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012
    • B-class/Mid-importance. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Still C-class, for lack of in-line citations. There are huge portions of un-referenced material. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Galneryus - Clearly better than start. Xfansd (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • C-class, as it lacks sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ClariS - Well it does have a good amount of sources, and it does appear to be well-written. I could assess it myself, but I would want some sort of approval first. Surely it isn't start class, it should at least be C-class. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • B-class. See Talk page for comments. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • LiSA - because practically all statements in the article are sourced, I'm pretty sure it isn't Start-class. Maybe C or B class? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • C-class. Although the prose, grammar, references, etc are adequate, the text of the article is too short at present to fulfill Coverage. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Masanobu Fukuoka – I've just done some more work on it, after a break, and know much more source checking work and other work that needs to be done on it, so would seriously appreciate reviewer's (different and experienced people's) serious criticisms and evaluations of it. i have had serious difficulties with this article's bias, pieces of POV writing, poor sources pretended by editor as excellent sources, and insidious mis-sourcing devils–in–the–details, etc. Thanks in advance. ——--macropneuma 23:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 23:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Omoiyari Yosan - I just did a little work to bring it up to date and did a fair amount a couple years ago when it was on the cleanup list. I can think of some places where it could be improved, but it's definitely beyond Start-class at this point, IMHO. Cckerberos (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Aya Hirano - I have sourced most of the remaining unsourced statements. Is it ready for C-class? Also, Hirano is one of the most popular voice actresses (at least during her peak) and was also very influential, so is she Mid-importance? My plan is to work on the article until it is ready for B class. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Funkist - This article is translated directly from Wikipedia Japan. So some user have put some notability but are not enought to qualify as good content article. I really want to make this article at least for B-class. SNN95 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • This article is definitely still a Start-class. It has a summary in the form of a bullet-list, instead of full-text description, lacks sources, and supporting materials. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Nichiren Buddhism Lately tried to clean up the article and added some more reference and interwiki link. Wonder if anyone could reassess the article / advise maybe even. Please notice the talk page – some heated debates were involved in that process.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Nichiren Shū Has been considerably edited since last rated. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Assessed C-class. Half the overview section is un-sourced, references are un-formatted, and the banner at the top of the article expresses concern that too many sources are primary sources or are biased. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Daisaku Ikeda - This article had been improved for the pass few years. Requesting a review for this article. Kelvintjy (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Requests for external assessment[edit]

Purge this page's server cache

Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
(8 more...)
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments
Peer reviews


A full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

See also[edit]