Talk:Aomori Prefecture/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SurenGrig07 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the previous article, pending a complete investigation concerning the internal minutiae of the article and the correction. of all minor error, which, upon an immediately cursory glance, do not appear to remain particularly prominent, I believe that the article qualifies for selection as a Good Article; this primarily results from its satisfactory fulfilment of the entirety of the associated criteria necessary for good article status. With regards to the first criterion, the article possesses particularly correct prose, with an absence of grammatical errors or sentences which must remain subject to basic or intermediate copy editing from the large majority of the article; the article possesses a structure which satisfies the guidelines established within the Manual of Style concerning layout. When viewing the adequacy of the article from the perspective of the second criterion, the article contains, when viewed cursorily, an apparent absence of original research or plagiarism; all citations within the article correspond to the guidelines of the Manual of Style and the citation format remains organised within a clear and elucidatory manner. The article remains broad within its coverage, addressing numerous aspects of the culture, history, geography, economy and culture of the Prefecture; for a potential future promotion within status, I would primarily recommend expansion of the Climate, Dialects and Symbols and Names sections. The article remains neutral, perhaps assisted via an apparent lack of controversy concerning the nature of the article; regardless, the criterion remains satisfied. A viewing of the edit history of the article dispels potential fears of an edit war; contributions remain entirely stable and constructive. Lastly, the images within the article provide exceptional support to the content; no apparent copyright violations exist within the article. Thus, I would like to announce my support for the selection of this article as a Good Article; thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurenGrig07 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of the article! I'll continue to make further improvements to it. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 01:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Further review

Hi, per this discussion I will be completing a more thorough review with the GA criteria. I'll also bullet my comments. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• The infobox looks good, there doesn't need to be a comma after the "Districts: 8", but otherwise I see no issues - map and flags all commons
• Some potential copyvio from one source, if you can provide dates relating to the article and [bedril.heartcry.pw/yoshie-shiratori-cause-of-death.html] that would be useful in determining this, because there are some chunks of non-quoted text that are the same.
• Variety of good sources - there is a ref error in the current [6] (Explore Towada-Hachimantai National Park), though, and it would be better to use a consistent ref style. There's currently inline citations and a separate list of references.
• The two refs in the lead don't need to be there, the information is not controversial and should be present (and cited) in the article body
• The lead is a good length for the article, however it goes into too much detail of geography and doesn't cover any/much history or culture, so it needs to be more balanced
• The geography section is well-written. Though the Mergers sub-section is empty besides a main article link, given the list nature and the standard per similar articles, this is suitable.
• History also well-written. The Hirosaki Castle image caption should have a period (it's a full sentence) - and I can see why the population table is aligned with the modern history and not the demographics section (room in the right align area, and that the population counts align with this period).
• I'm surprised there's not an individual sub-section for WWII? But it reads well enough.
• In Japanese location articles, does geography usually come before history? In Western city articles I see history come first, I don't know if the MOS is different?
• The economy section seems suitable, though I would have expected more on tourism - something about it, rather than just statistics.
• The list of festivals seems like it deserves its own article - it also makes the weight of the culture section seem uneven, more reason to reduce the festival coverage
• Aomori Prefecture hosted the 2003 Asian Winter Games. is not suitable coverage of this
• There's no references for the sports teams
• Is there anything about art that could be included in culture, for example?
• There's no references for the rail or road transport sub-sections. Worse, these are context-less lists. Not suitable coverage.
• Being a very sea-facing prefecture, I'm surprised there's no mention of maritime transportation.
• The E5 Series Shinkansen image caption needs a period.
• There's a massive image of the Aomori Bay Bridge - and zero mention of it? This transport section definitely fails coverage.
• Similarly, the Education section is an unreferenced, context-less, list of universities. What about other levels of school? Are there school districts? What's the state of adult literacy? Are any of these universities historic or notable? Have any of them produced prefecture leaders? And those are the questions off the top of my head.
• Apple blossom image caption needs a period
• Ironically, I did a GAR of Flagstaff, Arizona (for some coverage examples [though it is a city], go there - and it failed) - and that means I know that the Lowell Observatory is there. Perhaps you could mention that, because the way it's included suggests the Lowell Observatory is in Aomori rather than the U.S.
• The Dialects section could be longer, both so that the present information can be given more coverage and so be understood by more people (linguistics is technical), and so that more can be included on regional differences. It seems to be rushing through the information at present.
• Media needs more coverage.
• Notable people needs refs, perhaps an image or two could be used?

 On hold I'll place this on a two-week hold; it would be a shame to revoke the GA status awarded, but I think it needs more than a week's work. I'm amenable to keeping it open for longer. Kingsif (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for your helpful comments. I've fixed the infobox issue and I've started working my way down the list of concerns you made about the subject. I looked at what got flagged by the earwig tool, I'm really not sure what I'm looking at when I tried to access the page that the information is supposedly copied from: [1] It just appears as a blank page for me, but from the highlighted info in the earwig tool, it looks like the text of the site is just ripped from several different already-published sources, including this article. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 01:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The bedrii.heartcry.pw site is also giving me a blank page, and earwig no longer flags it. I'm a bit concerned with what's now the top earwig site, which involves the text of the final paragraph in the Military section. The article phrasing could be further from the source, and the article could give a bit more context (or drop this entirely; is it truly notable?). The first paragraph in the section has what appears to be two near-identical sentences in a row, and this should be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: thanks for pointing that out, I just dropped it because after doing some research it seems the event had no lasting repercussions on relations between the local people and the US military. I think I've addressed a lot of the issues mentioned above (I'm currently working on an overhaul of the "dialects" section and I'm trying to figure out how to include some artists under the culture section) Other than that, I'd appreciate further input on the changes that have been made. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 09:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In that case, pinging Kingsif to consider the recent changes and provide input. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Mccunicano:. The updates look good so far, with a good use of references. I'm interested in why On 20 February 2018 a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet caught fire in flight. The pilot dumped two fuel tanks into Lake Ogawara in eastern Aomori Prefecture. has been removed entirely; you're right that it's not very relevant in the military section, but has it had an effect on the area's ecology? Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for looking over the article. According to this source no fuel was found in the lake a few weeks after the incident. The most recent update on the situation I could find didn't mention any ecological impacts. It did mention that fishermen were compensated by the US military and the Japanese government for loses incurred while the lake was being cleaned for a few weeks. I'm not sure if this all belongs in this article, but I'll definitely add it to Lake Ogawara. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 23:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Hey again, I think I've addressed the concerns you laid out above. I'd appreciate feedback on anything else that can be done to help solidify the article's GA status or if it can be retained based on its current state. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 03:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mccunicano: Is there really nothing more to be said about, specifically, economy and culture? These sections seem brief and surface-level, especially talking about a whole prefecture. Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: sorry for the delay in my response, had a bit of a busy weekend. I've added some more detail about foreign tourism and the forestry sector of the economy. I'm kind of hung up on how to address the culture section beyond what's already there. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 02:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Mccunicano, Kingsif, where does this review stand? Nothing has been posted here for over three weeks, and it's been over two weeks since Mccunicano made any significant edits to the article, though they have been quite active elsewhere on Wikipedia since then. Can we get this wrapped up soon? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mccunicano: I'm going to procedural fail this based on coverage. Sometimes it can take a while to get a good level of coverage that is consistent to the topic throughout the article, and since you haven't been updating us (or the article), it would probably be easier to work on it then re-nominate rather than be under the expectations of reviewers. I'll happily review again at that point. Besides that, it's good - the culture and tourism sections just need detail. Kingsif (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)