Talk:Charter Oath

Translation

I corrected some atrocious mistake in translation. It is difficult even for a Japanese to read this old style Japanese. Reference from a Western author should be treated carefully unless they make reference of their translation to Japanese source. Vapour

To be honest, the previous version is quite biased. For example, the direct translation of first oath is "Raise assemblies widely and decide everything with public principle". Nowhere does it acutally demand that Japan establish parliamental democracies. Vapour

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Five Charter Oath → Charter Oath — Better, widely used English term Monocrat 03:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support. It is a better English rendition, and widely used in English-language scholarship.--Monocrat 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For the above reasons, but with the provision that the more direct translation of Oath in Five Articles is stated as well.MightyAtom 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support and supply a correct translation in the text as MightyAtom suggests. Dekimasu 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• There seems to be agreement at WikiProject:Japan for a move to Charter Oath. See Discussion.--Monocrat 03:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean I want to change my vote, but I've been thinking about why anyone would have named it Five Charter Oath, and I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that all of the articles are labeled #1. Dekimasu 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

GA Reassessment

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

This is being reviewed under the GA sweeps.

The article is neutral, balanced, very well-written and appropriately referenced. Though not well-documented, the only image used appears to be in order.

The article meets GA criteria. The comments on the 'to-do' list remain valid, in that the article could be more comprehensive and have a stronger lead. There is no question however that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and so is OK for GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)