Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Treasures of Japan/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:25, 8 June 2010 [1].

National Treasures of Japan

Featured article candidates/National Treasures of Japan/archive1

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been a very stable good article for a while. I am nominating it for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the Featured article criteria. It serves as an overview article of the (currently) 1,079 national treasures which are covered in more detail in the Lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - after reviewing the article in more detail, I feel that it is not ready for FA at this time. Below are some of my specific concerns.

Check consistency of US vs UK spelling

Checked and fixed. Everything should now be in UK English. bamse (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a couple - check "-or" vs "-our"

Can't find any. I was searching for "or " (that's "or" plus space) and all I found was a "splendor" in the references. Since it is written in this way on the website, I don't think it should be changed. bamse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay - with that search parameter, you would have missed the one in the "Notes" section.

Ah, okay, fixed the one ("armored->armoured"). Please let me know if there are any more American words.

I don't like the current organization of the article - it makes for a very bloated ToC and some very short subsections. I would suggest merging some of those shorter sections, maybe taking a more summary-style approach and creating daughter articles where necessary, perhaps also changing some of the headings to be more clear

Which part of the ToC are you referring to, the subsections of "Categories of National Treasures" or those of "History", or both? The categories subsections are already written in summary style (of the respective Lists of National Treasures of Japan articles. Which headings do you consider not clear? Would it be better, if I replaced the subsections (===Subsection-heading) with unnumbered headings (;Subsection-heading).

Both - the ToC is quite long, and quite a few subsections have only one paragraph. Subheading example: "Types of National Treasures" is confusing because "type" was used earlier to refer to the categories, and including "National Treasures" in the subheading seems redundant. As for the numbered vs unnumbered headings, I'm not sure of the convention there - it would definitely reduce the size of the ToC, but it may not help with the larger organizational issue.

I would recommend finding someone to copy-edit the article for you. The prose is frequently awkward and lacking in the crispness and clarity I would expect from a featured article, and at times includes grammatical errors.

The article has been thoroughly copy-edited by Truthkeeper88. Could you give examples for the issues you mentioned in order to know what to look for in another copy-edit?

Example of awkwardness: "Only if the owner cannot be located, or damages the property, or fails to adequately protect the property, or is unwilling to cooperate for public access to the property, does the government have the right to name a custodian which is usually a local governing body." - very long sentence, awkwardly worded. Lack of crispness: "As a term "National Treasure" has been used in Japan since 1897, though the meaning changed in 1950. The significance of the term pre-1950 differs from the term in post-1950." - redundant phrasing. Lack of clarity: "There are 122 swords and sword mounting National Treasures" - phrasing is unclear "mounting" should be plural, and you earlier said that there were 122 swords, period. Grammatical errors: "National treasures" vs "national treasures" vs "National Treasures" - need to differentiate between these terms. These are just examples - there are numerous problems with the prose that I would need to see resolved before I could consider supporting.

The copyedit is complete, and I am happy to address any other issues you find. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not brilliant, but better

The first paragraph of the lead, in particular the first sentence, needs revision. The purpose of the lead is to give a concise summary of the subject that won't overwhelm readers unfamiliar with the topic. "National Treasures are the most precious of Japan's Tangible Cultural Properties - precious in terms of monetary or "sentimental" or historical value? What is a Tangible Cultural Property? (I know it's linked, but a concise explanation would be appropriate)

Point taken concerning "precious". Not sure which part of "tangible cultural property" needs further explanation. Do I need to explain "cultural property" as well or only the full term ("a cultural property that can be touched...)?

Fixed the definition as part of the copyedit.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "tangible cultural property" is pretty self-explanatory, but doesn't Tangible Cultural Properties of Japan mean something beyond that? That's the term used in that sentence, so that's the term that needs to be explained.

Some stacking and sandwiching of images on my screen. In particular, I would suggest using the multiple image template to group the two distribution maps.

I used the "double image" template to join the two distribution maps. Could you explain what issues you have with the other images, since on my screen it just looks fine?

When you stack images one on top of another as in the "Categories" section, it makes the edit links bunch up; in the "Preservation" section, the two images sandwich the text between them. Take a look at WP:PIC for some tips.

File:Ujigami Haiden.jpg needs a description. Also, can we translate the descriptions for File:Todaiji daibutsuden 20070923.jpg and File:Okakura Tenshin.jpg?

Done.

Numbers under 10 are usually spelled out

They are now. Done. bamse (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't duplicate images - you've got enough pictures without including more than one of the same thing

OK. Just to make sure, are you referring to the first image, the mosaic?

Yes

Avoid writing paragraphs with fewer than 3 sentences
Check for consistency between footnotes and bibliography. For example, you've got full citation information for Deal twice, no full citation for Kishida, etc. Make sure that books include page numbers and locations. Also make sure that web links include publisher and access dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes and bibliography are now consistent. Web links have publisher and access dates and books have page numbers. Locations are not required as far as I understand Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. bamse (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to have a look at the article. I understand most of the issues you raised and will try to fix them. With some of the items, I am not sure, so I asked above. I'd be happy if you could clarify them. bamse (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88 is addressing the copy-edit issues. bamse (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88 has done an amazing job copy-editing the whole article once more. Following your suggestions I combined a couple of sections and changed the headings. Copy-edits are almost done, we'll just have a final look over it. As for the image stacking in the categories section, neither Truthkeeper88 nor me see it. Can you let us know how the subsection height (e.g. "Historical materials") compares to the image height? If they are almost the same, maybe a simple "{{-}}" could fix it. Alternatively, would removing all the images in the "categories" section be an option? bamse (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blank spaces would resolve the problem in most cases, but would waste a lot of empty space. While removing all of the images in that section would of course eliminate the issue, consider instead alternating the images left and right to prevent stacking. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented your suggestion on my sandbox since I don't know what looks best on your screen. The last three versions there are new: alternating left/right as you suggested, alternating left/right as you suggested and some changes to the headings, original version with some changes to the headings. Please take a look and let me know what looks best. bamse (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen, the alternating version with no heading changes looks the best. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented in the article. bamse (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: Sources themselves look OK. There are some formatting and presentation issues:-

Retrieval dates are not necessary for online sources that are print-based. However, it is necessary to be consistent, one way or the other. At present the Enders, Gibbon, Hickman, Jokilehto, McVeigh and several other books are lacking retrieval dates. These should be added – or the others removed.

Removed all retrieval dates. Done. bamse (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Likewise, publisher locations should be given in all or none cases.~~

Removed all publisher locations. Done. bamse (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The convention for book titles is capitalisation of all key words, hence Architecture and Authority, A History of Architectural Conservation etc.~~

Done. bamse (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Refs 3, 45, 52, 60, 72 require retrieval dates.~~

Done. bamse (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 6: It is not necessary to format this in full when the details are in the bibliography. Tre ref could be "Deal (2007), p. 315"~~

Done. bamse (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Any reason why the Munsterberg book (ref 81) is not listed in the bibliography?~~

Done. bamse (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I fixed all references as you suggested. bamse (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.