Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (castles)/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:01, 21 February 2010 [1].

List of National Treasures of Japan (castles)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (castles)/archive1

This is another list of the series of lists of National Treasures of Japan. It uses the same structure as the already featured shrine, painting and sculpture lists. I tried to incorporate comments from previous FLCs. I could not decide where to put the last paragraph of the lead. If you think it is better at the start, it could be easily changed. bamse (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *No problems reported with dab links, alt text, or external links. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is very nice work, bamse. Very well done, indeed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does indeed address most of the issues raised in previous FLCs. Nice work! I'm close to supporting, but the statistics table doesn't really make sense. When there are hundreds of items it's understandable to create a table, and state that there are some discrepancies, briefly explaining them. But when there are 8 castles and 13 structures I think it would be easier to just cover this as prose. The other extremely minor thing I saw was that [nb 2] comes before [nb 1] in the usage section. WFCforLife (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the small table with: The eight national treasures are distributed over four castles as follows: Himeji Castle has five national treasure structures; Hikone Castle, Inuyama Castle and Matsumoto Castle each have one national treasure. Also swapped nb 1 and nb 2. bamse (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Short but sweet, covers the topic very nicely. WFCforLife (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I suspect mid 15th should be hyphenated.

Done Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

period x 2 in first sentence reads poorly.

Good catch! Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archetypical - do you mean archetypal?

Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to make daimyo italics just sometimes, either always or never, be consistent.

Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"castle building" again, hyphen needed I think.

Added Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"eight[nb 1][nb 2] entries " ugly. I think you can safely put these notes at the end of the sentence after the period.
Fixed.bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This list presents eight" vs "In fact the number of structures presented is more than eight" one of these sentences, therefore, is incorrect. Or it just reads poorly. One way or another this could be fixed.
Fixed. (first "structures" changed to "National Treasures"). bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"each have one national treasure." no need to repeat "national treasure".

Removed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a problem with [[Hikone Castle]].
Fixed.bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
style[14], - move ref to after punc per MOS.

Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Each level is a bit smaller" - "a bit" is not particularly encyclopedic.

Reworded Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"remarks including; The column " something's missing here...
Fixed.bamse (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"construction; The column" no need for the capital T.
Fixed.bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same in following note.
Fixed.bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "geo coordinates" should be "geo-coordinates".
Done.bamse (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"three-stories/three floors" aren't stories the same as floors? and why is one hyphenated and the other not? If it's different can you explain why?
Added: A typical keep would have between three and seven stories discernible from the outside. Its inner structure including the number of floors could differ from the outward appearance.[19] Castle towers at Himeji, Inuyama and Matsumoto Castle have one floor more than is visible from the outside. to the statistics section. Added: ... the number of stories (outside) and floors (inside) to the usage section and removed hyphens. bamse (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's a ha-corridor?
Added: "The four corridors at Himeji Castle are labeled as "I", "Ro", "Ha", "Ni" corresponding to "A", "B", "C", "D"." as a footnote. bamse (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"[ex 1]; " move note to other side of punc per MOS (there are several of these)
Done. bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's a Ro-, Ni- and I-corridor?
Added footnote (see above under Ha-corridor). bamse (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 18 is poorly formatted.
Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JAANUS ref's need spaced en-dash instead of spaced hyphen per MOS.
Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have a section 6.1 when no 6.2 exists? Either create a 6.1 (for specific references) or make the current 6.1 a 7.
Made 6.1 into 7. Done. bamse (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth bibliography ref needs an en-dash.
Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the templates don't expand for me - e.g. Buried Cultural Properties.
That should be the only part that does not expand (correct?). It is not supposed to expand (it is a feature), because there are no designated Buried Cultural Properties and there are too many Buried Cultural Properties, so there is not going to be a List of Buried Cultural Properties either. It would be good to get rid of the "[show]" for this row. I found a way to achieve this but it breaks center alignment of "Buried Cultural Properties". Also asked here for help. bamse (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation techniques template is badly formatted - "Selected ConservationTechniques" there should be a space in there..
Fixed.bamse (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why your metres are to two decimal places while the feet are to just one?
No idea. I used "convert"-templates which take care of the conversion automatically. Since a foot is less than a meter, a one decimal foot-precision might be comparable to a two-decimal meter-precision. If you think it is a problem, I could ask the authors of the template or remove the templates all together from the article.
I thought the {{convert}} template would allow you to specify decimal places? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does allow to specify decimal places. However the default behavior (without specifying anything) takes care of precision automatically. Citing from Template:Convert#Rounding: Default rounding: ..., the conversion will be rounded either to a comparable precision as the input value ... or to two significant figures, whichever is the most precise. Let's say you convert "1.1 m" (one decimal) to cm. Even without specifying anything the convert template will output "110 cm", i.e., no decimals. So the number of decimals does not have to be the same in input and output length. bamse (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Another well made list. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like a nice list. I do have a couple of comments though but nothing to cause me to withhold my support.

I wonder if the bit about "This list is complete and up-to-date as of January 2, 2010" is really necessary

It is not really necessary. I basically put it there to remind myself of the date I last checked its completeness. The Agency for Cultural Affairs gets together about four times per year to decide about the designation of new national treasures. In the 21st century there were each year between one and five new national treasures designated in one of the 13 categories. So the number of national treasures is growing slowly. Just checked: the castle list is still up-to-date as of today. If it is confusing, I could remove the template. bamse (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's there to remind yourself, you could just put in a hidden HTML comment like so:  Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did that. bamse (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, consider doing that on the other National Treasure lists (including those that have been promoted to FL) as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bamse (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple places where it says things like 1600 to 1615 and I think it shoudl be an endash instead a to.

I disagree; spelling out "to" and "through" in prose seems better than dashes. At the least, there is no good reason to change the style. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a couple places with hyphens and should be endashes, such as one-storied and up-to-date.

--Kumioko (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the hyphens are correct there. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough --Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 14 February 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.