Talk:Government of Japan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

@TheInfernoX: Sorry about the delay, let's get started.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• No need to italicize "pre-war" or "post war". Done
• The first usage of the word "post-war" is unecessary. Done
• Everything in the lead should be in the body. That is not the case, however, and it needs a rewrite.

Body

• No need to italicize "nominally" or "actual power" Done
• Too many duplicate links that need to be fixed. Done
• Disambiguation link to "State act" Done

Referencing

• Up to half of this article is unreferenced. This needs to be fixed. Doing...
• Three sources from YouTube. This source is generally considered unreliable. Done

Coverage

• 13 sources, seems quite small for such a large article.
• Shouldn't there be some history on the government?

Neutrality

• "actual power" seems unneutral. I suggest that you remove "actual" Done

Images

• There are too many images in the article. Please remove some.

• Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Hi. Sorry for the delay, I was quite busy for the past few days.

Is it okay for me to move the paragraphs in the lead to a new section like an overview with a little touch on it's history?

I'd heavily recommend to just move the history part to the body and leave the rest where it is. I think you should also add a little more on it' history (for example history before WWII).--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean, can I make a new heading in the body with a title "Overview and history" and write it's history there? I can simplify the lead as well by moving it there. I think it will be better than writing onto the existing body, as it's not the main focus of the article. TheInfernoX (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead is the part of the article that introduces the readers to the article's subject. Check this article for a general structure I'd recommend.

I have removed the words "actual" and some redundant images, and have replaced the YouTube sources with more reliable ones. TheInfernoX (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): I believe I have made all the necessary corrections. Can you please check? Thanks! ~TheInfernoX (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• A few more citations, please.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): I have added the necessary citations. Can you please check again? ~TheInfernoX (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Marked two more that are necessary.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Done. Citations added. ~TheInfernoX (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Thank you! ~TheInfernoX (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)