[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Coldplay Expert 21:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm placing the nomination on hold to allow contributors time to address the below concerns. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page should you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns that I feel have been adequately addressed have been struck. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Writing and formatting

• Some of the section headings are problematic. Headings shouldn't start with "The" and should avoid repeating "war" so many times (although appropriate in some places, "Impact of the war", for instance, could be "Impact"). Cliches like "the tide turns" should be avoided

Still some issues with "The", and some of the section titles are still rather cliched

Y Done Feel free to fix any other cliches that you see

I would suggest changing the header "The tide turns" to something like what Coldplay Expert did here, or at least something along those lines. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 13:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Spelling should be consistently either British or American

I cant really do this with any degree of success as I only know American English if anyone else can help with its problem please do.

What's the consensus on this? Is consensus to change the British English to American or to change the American English to British? Let me know and I will gladly change it for you. @Kate (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

omg well thank you on your willingness to do this..I would say British English as the war starts LONG before the Americans official entry the conflict.Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well. If no one objects by Monday, I'll make the appropriate changes. @Kate (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support the change to British English, even though im american this article should be british per the reaons stated above.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate spelling changes are Y Done, though I would appreciate it being looked over once again as it has been quite some time since I've used exclusively British spelling and it is possible that I may have missed one or two. Let me know.:) GwenNovak ^{talk to my master} 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've more or less finished it (see article history), though there may be one or two Americanisms I've missed, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For those that don't know, the accepted way of deciding the variety of English that should be used (in an article that does not have a clear national association) is to follow the choice of the first major editor - see WP:RETAIN. In this case though, the oldest edit has both "criticised" and "harbor" in it so it is unclear. Anyway, I guess it's ok if consensus has been reached on this page with no objections. Also, I am fairly sure that perimetre is not a correct spelling in any variety of English. SpinningSpark 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Y Done...looks good to me ...lets let the reviewer add the <s> When she is happy with it all Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost perfect, but could someone quickly change "counterattack"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed I changed one instance of "counterattack" and one instance of "counteroffensive" to "counter-attack" and "counter-offensive" for the sake of consistent BE spellings. @Kate (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per this tool, there are 4 dab links to be fixed

N Not done

I fixed a couple a while ago, and someone else's fixed the third since then, but I'm not sure where Japanese Occupation should go, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I solved the problem by unlinking it, although arguably it could be a reasonable exception to the "links to dab pages are bad" rule as most of the entries there comprise the set of Japanese occupied countries. SpinningSpark 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I realize that the minimum lead size is 3 paragraphs, but for an article of this magnitude IMO 3 is not sufficient to give an overview of the entire text

N Not done IMO I think that 3 is enough. I will hoever see what I can do but right now it is at the bottom of my priority list.

• Article linked in the text or as "main articles" for certain sections should not also be linked in See also

Y Done removed all 8-9 extra links in the see also section

• "they did not become a World War until they merged in 1941; at which point the war continued until 1945" - punctuation is incorrect as written

:Y Done reworded the sentence to say "Both wars did not become a global conflict until they merged in 1941; at which point the war continued until 1945."

Semi-colon should be a comma, still a bit awkwardly worded

Y Done I changed this a while ago to say "Neither war became a global conflict until they merged in 1941, at which point the war continued until 1945." Is that okay?

Better, but still not great...what if you took out the negative? Something along the lines of "The two became a global conflict when they merged..."

• "on October 1935" -> "in October 1935"

Y Done

• "The end of the War also has several dates" - grammar and clarity issues

N Not done Dont know where it is. Will fix once I find it.

Start of second paragraph under Chronology

Y Possibly done. I changed it to say "The exact date of the War's end is not universally agreed upon.", but I don't know whether this will be satisfactory or not, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Avoid wikilinking the same term more than twice in the article text (no more than once in the main text, i.e. excluding the lead and infobox)

N Not done Very big task. I will have to read the entire article and look at all the links. I will attempt it later.

Y Done: Got rid of all the duplicate links.--Twilight Helryx 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest putting "Chronology" before "Background"

Y Done switched places

• Mukden Incident is first mentioned in Background, and thus the parenthetical explanation should appear there

In Background, Japan "used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria"; in Invasion of Ethiopia, you mention "Mukden Incident in 1931 (the Japanese annexation of three Chinese provinces)". Since background comes first, the stuff in parantheses should appear there instead

Y Done Fixed wording.

• Date formatting should be consistent - the standard seems to be Month Day, Year, so all dates should be formatted that way

:Y Done Dont see any mistakes there, I could be wrong though...

There's one under Invasion of China

Y Done Fixed it.

• Avoid one- to two-sentence short paragraphs

N Not done

Y Done: merged all such paragraphs with corresponding paragraphs.--Twilight Helryx 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• All measurements should have conversions (use the convert template)

N Not done Im not sure how to do this so if anyone else wishes to, go right ahead.

Check here for information on how to do this with the template

Question. I don't see any measurements in the article; can someone point them out for me?--Twilight Helryx 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a couple "kilometres" in "The war become global", and some currencies under "Impact"...might be more that I'm missing atm. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I see them now. Getting to work on them. Thanks!--Twilight Helryx 14:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've converted all measurements for distance and barrels of oil. However, Reichmarks (under World War II#Occupation still needs to be converted. Does anyone here know how to convert that to USD and/or £? --Twilight Helryx 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Should be consistent in using either "percent" or "%" in article text

Y Done: I think I've gotten them all.--Twilight Helryx 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Check for proper use of commas and hyphens

N Not done Big task. I will try to get to it soon.

• Commas should not be used between months and years, but only between days and years

N Not done Another big task.

Y Done I went through every mention of a month (eg. January, February, etc.) in the article and fixed where appropriate (eg. "in June, 1944" was changed to "in June 1944"). I hope I did it right, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is it properly called "the Holocaust" or "The Holocaust"? Should be consistent

Y Done Worded it to say "The Holocaust"

• "hosted by the University of North Texas Libraries'" - grammar

Y Done What is wrong with thats sentence? I dont see any grammar problems. I may be wrong though...

" Libraries' " - either you're missing a word or the apostrophe is misplaced

Deleted the whole link as it was dead. See below (ref's)

• "during the 2nd world war" - capitalization

N Not done I will have to find this sentence once I read the entire article. Where is it?

It's part of a description in External links

Y Done. Changed it to say "during the Second World War", Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Footnotes should come immediately after punctuation, not before

N Not done Another big task to work on when I read the entire article.

• • Sorry to butt in, but could I suggest using AWB? If you set a regexp to find </ref>, etc. it should be pretty quick. Let me know if you need help. delldot ∇. 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, in the comming days Ill try to fix them.--Coldplay Expert 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't/can't use AWB, even the Ctrl+F function would work probably work okay, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Y Done I looked pretty thoroughly, and I think I've fixed them all, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy and verifiability

• Might consider reformatting the notes section to have columns instead of the long list

Y Done {{reflist2}}Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Citation needed tag should be addressed

Y Done ^[1]

• Citations needed for:

• making it the deadliest conflict in human history.

Y Done...^[2]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria

Please look could be Wikipedia:Copyright violations ^[3]

The text from that site is identical to a large portion of the text in this article. Therefore, either we copied them or they copied us. Since the copyright date on their site is after this article first appeared, I'm inclined to believe the latter, but you might want to ask someone over at WP:CP to take a look just to be sure.

Y Done replaced above reference ^[4]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the greatest source, but okay...Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I aggree it is a copy of a news article in German..i will look for a better one

• Chinese volunteer forces continued the resistance

Y Done ^[5]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The situation was aggravated in early 1935 when the Saarland was legally reunited with Germany and Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, speeding up his rearmament program and introducing conscription

Y Done ^[6]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ethiopia never capitulated or surrendered

Resolved.

Statement removed What i have found is that the government fled and was replaced by a puppet government...so yes they never technically surrendered as they were not there to do so...but statement above implies the government fought on ..but it was independent tribes that resisted....Buzzzsherman 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Kiev offensive was overwhelmingly successful, resulting in encirclement and elimination of four Soviet armies, and made further advance into Crimea and industrially developed Eastern Ukraine (the First Battle of Kharkov) possible

Y Done ^[7]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• triggered a successful coup d'état

Y Done ^[8]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• On the Eastern Front, Germany surrendered specifically to the Soviets on May 8. A German Army Group resisted in Prague until May 11.

Y Done ^[9] + copy editOn the Eastern Front, Germany surrendered to the Soviets on May 8. A German Army Group resisted in Prague until May 11. the army did surrenderer to the Soviets on May 8 {this is that the solderers on the Eastern Front actual physically were handed over to the Soviets} Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, as a common standard of achievement for all member nations

Y Done ^[10]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• divisions, usually for ethnic or religious reasons, occurred following European withdrawal

Y Done ^[11]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Figures on the amount of total casualties vary to a wide extent because the majority of deaths were not documented.

Y Done Removed statement just does not fit in ...after you read all the numbers then we say PS there all wrong ...dont think so

Yes, but you might want to say something about why estimates vary so wildly

• According to Mitsuyoshi Himeta, at least 2.7 million died during the Sankō Sakusen implemented in Heipei and Shantung by General Yasuji Okamura

:Y Done ^[12]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is identical to the ref - possible copyvio. Also needs page number, and this isn't a book.

Resolved.

Copy edit and fix ref Mitsuyoshi Himeta reported 2.7 million casualties occurred during the Sankō Sakusen. General Yasuji Okamura implemented the policy in Heipei and Shantung.^[13]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The U.S. and Canadian governments interned 150,000 Japanese-Americans, as well as nearly 11,000 German and Italian residents of the U.S.

Y Done ^[14][15] Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The assault rifle, a late war development which incorporated many of the best features of the rifle and submachine gun, became the standard postwar infantry weapon for nearly all armed forces.

:Y Done ^[16]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also not a book, needs page number, the work is not called "Amnesty International". Also does not support "incorporated many of the best features of the rifle and submachine gun".

Resolved.

fix ref to link to Amnesty International and second ref for first statement^[17][18]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another important aspect of military intelligence was the use of deception operations, which the Allies successfully used on several occasions to great effect, such as operations Mincemeat and Bodyguard. which diverted German attention and forces away from the Allied invasions of Sicily and Normandy respectively

Y Done Copy edit removed text above in bold ^[19]

• notable examples being the British ULTRA and the Allied breaking of Japanese naval codes

Y Done ^[20]

• Other important technological and engineering feats achieved during, or as a result of, the war include the worlds first programmable computers (Z3, Colossus, and ENIAC), guided missiles and modern rockets, the Manhattan Project's development of nuclear weapons.

:Y Done^[21]Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Supports only programmable computers. Also. there should be an apostrophe in "worlds"

Resolved.

have used this ref for whole paragraph ^[20] + typo fix done on above ref Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Referencing format should be consistent per WP:CITE

Y Done fixed most ref's

There are still some inconsistencies in formatting

• "Tucker's own view is that 191 is most convenient" - is that a typo?

Y Done Removed fake ref..was added almost a year ago...book is right but all like author and page etc,,is fake....Second ref still ther Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• All book references need a date and publisher; all web references need an access date and publisher/author (where available). Some are currently missing this information

N Not done

• At least one of your references (Hsiung) is duplicated in notes

N Not done

• What makes note 257 (faqs.org) a reliable source?

Y Done Note 257 is not faqs.org but a japanesse site.

That's because you've added refs since this comment was made. The ref I'm referring to is now 259, but that might change again if you change the references

Lost it again

It's called "Deported Nationalities", and is currently 261

Well Im not going to remove the source but I do agree it is not the best source. Ill leave it for now as a secondary source (now I just need a primary source)

• Note 266 leads to a site about a documentary on an IRA bombing

Y Done Note 266 talks about the Eastern Front.

See above comment; the problematic ref is currently 268

Lost it again

It's called "The warlords: Joseph Stalin" and is currently 270

Note: To find the ref # that is mentioned here ..I just look at a copy that was there before review that i know reviewer saw Revision as of 08:24, 5 November 2009 ,by Nikkimaria. Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Y Done removed the citation but not is may need to have a "citation needed" tag.

• Notes that appear more than once should be named and appear using the proper multiple-ref formatting

N Not done Im not sure how to do that.

On the first appearance of a particular reference, you cite it fully, but insert a name: <ref name="xyz">ref details</ref>. On the next appearance of the same ref, you can simply use <ref name="xyz"/> to lead to the same source.

• Tertiary sources should be avoided when reliable secondary sources are available

N Not done

• University of North Texas poster collection is a dead link; Daily German action reports is a dead link

Y Done removed dead link on german reports. and north texas poster collection.

• Per WP:EL, some of the external links need to be culled

N Not done

[edit] Broad

No issues noted

[edit] Neutrality

• Does a fairly good job with encyclopedic tone, but there are a few momentary lapses - be sure to maintain neutral and academic language
• Look at WP:WTA
• Per WP:WEASEL, don't use the phrase "some sources" or synonyms
• Words like "notable" and "important" should be used carefully and should be qualified and supported judiciously

Y Done Looks good to me, Feel free to prove me wrong though.

One example: "scored a much-needed public morale boost" is colloquially worded and IMO unencyclopedic as written. There are several instances of this type of problem throughout the article, although the majority is well-written.

[edit] Stability

• Stable, semi-protected

[edit] Images

• Most of the images in the infobox are duplicated in the main article - why was this done?

N Not done Im keeping this as not done but I belive they are duplicated in the article becasue they are..well really good images. I can go back to an old version of the infobox if you want me to.

Why dont we go back to this set of images. They are not used in the main article.

• The infobox image lists only two source images but incorporates six. Though it is asserted that all are in the public domain, without sources this cannot be verified

N Not done See below.

Since most of the source images are in the article, you can simply add those photos as source images on the file description page

• One of the source images for the infobox image describes the emaciated figures simply as "prisoners", while the caption asserts that they are "Jews" - without a source, that statement is not verifiable and may not be accurate

N Not done Not sure how to fix the infobox images.

This fix can be done without changing the infobox images - you just might need to change the caption if you cannot find evidence that all of the people in that photo are Jewish.

I couldn't find evidence that all the people in the photograph were Jewish, so I changed "Jews" to "prisoners" on Template:WW2InfoBox as Jews were not the only group of people to go to concentration camps, and without a source to back up the assertion that they are all Jews, I believe "prisoners" is more accurate. @Kate (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• The source link for Reichsparteitag_1935_mod.jpg is broken

Y Done replaced the image

• According to the terms of the licensing tags used for Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg‎, its description page must have a source, author and location of first publication

Y Done Replaced image.

Wuhan_1938.jpg also needs source, author and location of first publication

• "Common parade of German Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army on September 23rd 1939 in Brest, Eastern Poland at the end of the Invasion of Poland. At the center Major General Heinz Guderian and Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein." - should use "23" instead of "23rd", last sentence doesn't make sense, there are three people in the picture (if the third is unimportant, should specify which one the label applies to by saying "at right is...")

Y Done fixed the date problem and specified who is where.

• Source link for Kyiv-Prorizna_1941.jpg‎ is broken

Y Done replaced image.

• Permissions link for Japanese_troops_mopping_up_in_Kuala_Lumpur.jpg is broken and it is tagged as lacking author information

Y Done Replaced the image

• Source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken and the permission information requires a caption/photo credit

Y Done replaced the image with another from the battle of stalingrad

Is the one you added German pows stalingrad 1943.jpg? It uses a deprecated license tag

Replaced the image again.

Is the new one M3_Tank_Stalingrad.jpg? It's missing author info, which it must have under that licensing tag

You know as much as I do that there is no why we will be able to find the author. He was probably killed in the fighting. Oh well I guess Ill have to find a new image (again).--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• The information page for Prokhorovka.jpg‎ says is was taken at the Battle of Prokhorovka, while the caption says Battle of Kursk. Which is correct?

Y Done Battle of Prokhorovka was part of the greater and more well know Battle of Kursk.

• The higher-resolution source link for File:Approaching Omaha.jpg is broken

Y Done No longer broken

• VE-day-parade-moscow.jpg‎ is tagged as lacking source and author information

Y Done Removed the image as the author has not yet responded to my request for a source.

• File:Wuhan 1938.jpg needs a source
• File:Armia Czerwona,Wehrmacht 23.09.1939 wspólna parada.jpg says it is public domain, but there's no PD tag. The Creative Commons tag is contradictory to the PD claim. Also, no source
• File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG says it's PD in the US, but it obviously wasn't published before 1923.
• Can you find an author for File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG?
• File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg needs a stronger fair-use rationale
• File:Holocaust123.JPG should be replaced with another image illustrating the same point

I don't know why, I just felt a need to comments. Images aren't my strong point, so please forgive me if I sound like a moron. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK in order:

1.I guess Ill have to move the Wuhan picture (again)

2.Same as above

3.Uh...Ill have to look that up it does seem confusing. (May have to replace that image too)

4.There is no way that we can find a real life author to that image. More than likely, the author was killed in the fighting around stalingrad or elsewhere on the eastern front.

5.Why does it need a stronger fair use rationale? It looks fine to me.

6.Ill see what I can do, the image is graphic a bit. Although there may be concerns over downplaying the holocaust in this article. It was after all one of history's darkest chapters...

--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd doesn't seem impossible to fix. Permission should be changed to reflect actual permission [1] and it should be fine.--Staberinde (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I think that I fixed it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re #4: if you could track down the listed source for the picture, it will likely either give credit for the photo to someone or it will say "photographer unknown", in which case per the copyright info linked from the description page, the publisher qualifies as the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Would it be possible to contact the original uploaders for these images. For some of the broken links, a Google search may yield an updated link. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks and BTW, is there a certain amount of time that this has to be done in?--Coldplay Expert 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Strict GAN rules say 1 week, but I tend to be a bit more generous, especially in cases like this where there are lots of things to be addressed. Usually, so long as issues are being addressed, I will allow a month to complete the review. However, if for whatever reason the review stops progressing, I usually decline to list after one week of inactivity. To sum up, so long as you keep working at it, you've got plenty of time. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, then ill be sutre to make the occasional edit. (Or a lot more) To be honest if I knew about all of those problems, I would have not nominated this ariticle.--Coldplay Expert 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

dont give up Cold... i will help were i can ..i will also give a shout out to the war project guys...if we get 3-6 people working on this it should break down the work... Nikkimaria is very good at pointing out all things wrong and in most cases after what she has mentioned is done ,,it will pass with no problems... Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks extra help would be nice.--Coldplay Expert 11:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy and verifiability added notes and referances

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese settlement in the Federated States of Micronesia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC) The article generally satisfies GA criteria but:

1. The lead should be expanded. It should better summarize the article. For instance, a better summary of the History section is needed as well as Economy and Religion. In addition some information in the lead is not mentioned in the main text (although relations soured as the Japanese administration imposed policies that were in favour of the Japanese populace, as well as conscripting Micronesians to menial labour to support Japan's war effort in the Second World War.)
2. The Japanese served them some millet and sake, and left the town after a hostile encounter when the men attempted to take the bows and spear Please, explain who lived the town: Japanese or Micronesians?
3. At the time of German annexation, serving as the resident agent for a German trading company at that time. I do not understand what this incomplete sentence means.
4. It is better to move books that are not used as references from Bibliography to Further reading section.
5. Byron et al. (1921) is an error, because Byron is the first name. (should be Baker et al. (1921))
6. The same with Wightman.
7. What are the titles of publications in Harper's Magazine, Pacific Magazine, Pacific Studies, The Scientific Monthly and Pacific Islands Monthly?

Hi Ruslik, thanks for your inputs. I have made the necessary amendments to the article with respect to the recommendations that you have suggested;

While I have edited the lead somewhat, I was wondering how exactly you think the lead should be modified? With respect to the phrase of "conscripting Micronesians to menial labour", I have removed it after noticing that it is not in the main text. I noted in guidelines that the lead should serve as a general summary of the article. While taking your recommendations into considerations, I was wondering that the lead should cover important aspects of the article "holistically" or that it merely serves as a blunt summary and putting all points of the article into the lead with the holistic considerations relegated to a secondary consideration? Your suggestion that the religion aspect should be covered is also mentioned in the infobox, which is why the infobox is meant for! That is what I interpret it. Also, let us consider that the article is less than 40kB long, and even many featured or good articles of larger size have leads that are of this length with respect to this article. The lead can always be modified and evolved should more relevant content be added for this article. For instance you may want to refer how the lead section of Barack Obama is written, which is a Featured Article.

I simply want you to lengthen it by one paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a rough comparison here. Quoting from a few featured articles, Azerbaijani people has 1685 characters; Ban Ki-moon has 1403 characters. Okay; that maybe slightly longer than this article of 1,347 characters. Another featured article of comparable length Richard Hakluyt (45kb), has 1,066 characters in the lead section. I did a count using [2] found at the DYK.

The guideline at Wikipedia:Lead section suggest that two to three paragraphs for an article of about 32kb is fine. This article is about 36kb. True, there are articles with an even longer character count, but I really cannot think of what else to add to the lead section; penning down something that I cannot think of will depreceate the quality of writing. Unless you think there are relevant points or inputs that can be considered, feel free to add it on. I may consider adding a little more, but I cannot think of any meaningful suggestions that can add value to the lead section as for now. Mr Tan (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead by a little bit; the character count now stands at 1430. Feel free to copyedit if there maybe any gramatical errors.Mr Tan (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Some publications lack a reference author, or at least what I saw from Google books. That is where I draw the bulk content of the article from. The books that lacks the publishers name are actually those that lack an author's name; I have shifted the name of the publisher to those of the author. Otherwise, we can have a duplicate of the publisher and author's name in this format for books that lack a reference author:

"Author (publisher)", "Title", "year", "Publisher", "ISBN XXX

But what are the titles of the articles that you refer to? Ruslik_Zero 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For instance, I found an article in Harper's Magazine titled: By H.L. (Henry Louis) Mencken "The future of English" pp. 541-548 (you cite page 542). Is this the article you refer to? Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or may be you are actually citing The big Pacific push: I. The turkey-shoot of Saipan of 1945 ? Ruslik_Zero 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, no. I am refering to a suggested format for books without a author whom we can refer to. I think that you may have misunderstood what I meant. But nevertheless, consider this bibloigraphy reference:

• Pacific Magazine Corp, Pacific Magazine, Volume 10, 1985

That reference above does not have an author whom we can refer to. I will have to use the publisher's name in place of the author. But in this case, if we are to put the publisher's name after the title, does it mean that we will have to cite the title instead? To prevent this break of flow, I chose to cite the publisher. If wikipedia guidelines disproves of this suggestion, and states that the title maybe cited should there be no author whom we can refer to, I have no qualms of changing. Mr Tan (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What you are citing are not books but magazines. Every magazine contains several articles. Every article has a title and authors. Please, provide them. Ruslik_Zero 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I found information about Harper's magazine and Pacific Magazine myself (see article). Other magazines (Pacific Studies, The Scientific Monthly and Pacific Islands Monthly) are up to you. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but where am I to source for the article's name? I do not know how you can source the article's name for the title and the author on the net, or it happened that you have it in your library. I do not have assess to any of these hard copy materials for now; I am only able to take down whatever information that google books have. But do take note that some magazines contain only snippets and I cannot see the full article, which also often includes the title. I cannot simply just guess out the title. Put it simply, unless you can provide me hints or leads that I can trace the title of the relevant articles, there is really nothing more I can do for this part. Mr Tan (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. The other way is to provide alternative citations that have the same information, which I have just done for two out of three magazines. I have since removed 2 magazines from the bibliography section. If I can find a good alternative citation for citation Number 62, I will make the necessary edit. Meanwhile, if you may, I seek your help in finding the name of the relevant article, if possible? Mr Tan (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just found that Pacific Studies journal is freely available in the internet. Can you complete at least this reference now? Ruslik_Zero 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for providing the link. I have just made the necessary amendments. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the page number correct? I mean that the page numbers for the article are 20-32, whereas you are citing Shuster (1981), p. 36? Ruslik_Zero 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rather keep the whole article in context--should future editors take more materials from the article. Done.Mr Tan (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I still do not understand how can p.36 be correct? The page numbers for the article are 20-32, therefore the page number must be less than 32 and more than 20? Ruslik_Zero 10:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the person who showed me the online source, why don't you personally go and take a look at the cited journal? There are up to 36 pages of text, with page numbering clearly stated in the pages. I am dead sure that I have seen the correct source this time round. Mr Tan (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, their table of contents appears to be wrong: actual page numbers are 20-43. So, p. 36 is correct. Currently only lead thing is left. Ruslik_Zero 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

How you want to change it? I dont understand why you are so fixed as to think that the lead is too short, given that this article is only 36kb long. Generally, most of the articles that have 2000 character word lead are usually 55kb and above in size. I have already done a relative comparison with some examples listed above. Perhaps you may want to do a character count on the lead using the software I have provided, or you expand it in the way you think may best fit. Mr Tan (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have removed at least one book that is not used for reference. I understand that you may not have noticed that there are a number of sources that are only cited once. For reasons of practicality, I do not advocate the idea of a "Further reading" section, as this can lead to other editors continuously adding a long list of books which we may not know the extent of its relevance. Who knows? The section can occupy at least half of the article in the years to come? As far as possible, I do not want to set this precedent.

(PS:Bear with me if I cannot respond within a short notice. Pls drop me a note should you reply. Thanks!)Mr Tan (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Japan

Previous peer review

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to send this article to FAC sometime in the future. The last time I sent this article there, it needed some copyediting. Now, with the ongoing Flag of Singapore FAC, the standards of FAC have changed. This includes the alt text, which is something I am working on. The image sourcing is being taken care of and I think all of the dates have been delinked. If you have anything else, just let me know.

Thanks, User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Fuji

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because… I hope to do some work to improve the article to possibly FA, in honor of a deceased colleague, but am not myself familiar enough with articles of this type to be able to say what sections and areas are or are not acceptable.

Thanks, John Carter (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and a good start. Some sections such as the "Etymology" subsection seem much more polished than other sections. A significant problem in the lower sections is lack of sourcing. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections in the lead. This one could easily be expanded to three paragraphs that would summarize the article more fully.

Sourcing

• Although parts of the article appear to be properly sourced, large blocks are unsourced, all of the "Climbing routes" section, for example. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is extraordinary or that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for details.

Etymology

• "A Japanese classical scholar in the Edo era.. ".- Wikilink "Edo era" to Edo period?
• "argued that the name is from the Ainu word for 'fire'... ". - Double quotes are standard in Wikipedia article rather than single quotes; i.e., "Fire". Ditto for all similar instances in the article.

Variations

• The Manual of Style generally frowns on extremely short paragraphs. I think the two in this section could be merged.
• The second paragraph lacks a source even though it contains information that is not common knowledge.

History

• "It is thought that the first ascent was in 663 by an anonymous monk." - Specify CE or BCE?
• "Ancient samurai used the base of the mountain... " - Wikilink samurai?

Geography

• "The lowest recorded temperature is −38.0 °C while on June 2008 the highest temperature was recorded at 17.8 °C." - In Wikipedia articles, metric units are generally presented in imperial units as well. I like to use the {{convert}} template because it spells and abbreviates correctly and does the math; e.g., −38 °C (−36 °F). You can look at this in edit mode to see how to convert other temperatures.

Aokigahara

• The image at the top of this section needs to be moved or made smaller to avoid displacing the section head.

Transportation

• "crashed near Mount Fuji Gotemba New fifth station" - I think "fifth station" needs to be explained clearly on first use. Most readers will not know what a fifth station refers to.

Climbing routes

• "From the seventh station to near the fifth station, one could run down these ash-covered paths in approximately 30 minutes." - Would it be helpful to add the elevations of each of these stations? Is the seventh station at the summit?
• "Nevertheless, one can sometimes see people riding mountain bikes along the tractor routes down from the summit. This is particularly risky, as it becomes difficult to control speed and may send some rocks rolling along the side of the path, which may hit other people." - This paragraph sounds like personal research, a no-no. Who is the "one" who is seeing this?

General

• The gallery is too big and includes a lot of redundant images. Readers can always visit the Commons via the link provided if they want to see more. Please see WP:IG for a more complete explanation.

• I'd be inclined to place "Geology" and "Geography" before "History".

• Would it be possible to include a bit more about the mountain's religious significance? What religion? Sacred in what sense? What in the religion forbade women to climb the mountain? When did those views change?

• Would it be possible to include a section on flora and fauna with a lot of detail about what grows and lives on the mountain? Does anyone farm on the mountain or near its base?

• Do any streams flow from Mount Fuji? Is the mountain a source of drinking water for any communities?

• A good way to get ideas for articles on any topic is to look at the sublist of Featured Articles on that topic. See WP:FA#Geography and places, within which you'll find Mount Tambora and other FA volcano articles.

• The link checker tool in the upper right-hand corner of this review page finds at least six dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As is, the geology section needs a major expansion; each of the phases of activity should get its own subsection and a quick review of the region's geology should be treated in another subsection. Especially needed is an account of where the lava came from (subduction). The gallery, at least most of it, needs to go since Wikipedia is not a place for them; Commons is. Image formating also needs to be fixed for File:Ogata Gekko - Ryu sho ten edit.jpg since it is interfering with the ===Aokigahara=== section sub-heading. Also, for such a monumentally important volcano to Japan, the ==History== section seems a bit thin on detail. I'd like to see a few substantial subsections. Overall, at 2100 words of prose, I don't think this article is comprehensive enough to pass FAC. I suggest putting this through WP:GAN after addressing the points raised in this PR. If it fails GAN, come back here. If it passes, also come back here before submitting to FAC. This article is so important that any FAC for it will get extra scrutiny. Compare with the less important, but FA, Mount St. Helens (4500 words). --mav (Please help review Mono-Inyo Craters) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suzuki Hayabusa

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping the article can be brought up to the standards of GA or even FA with a reasonable amount of additional work. It would be useful to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling to have at least one article on a model of motorcycle that can serve as a guide for what we'd like to see for the hundreds of other articles we have on individual bike models.

The article is fairly global in scope, with the main topics not touched being:

• The Ben Roethlisberger motorcycle crash [3], with perhaps some additional mention of other celebrities with custom Hayabusas. To me that topic is a little too lacking in substance, and the custom section does mention that celebrity customers boost sales, without dwelling on it. The coverage on his bio page Ben Roethlisberger#Motorcycle accident seems sufficient, also.
• Female speed record holders such as Trillium Muir and Leslie Porterfield [4] [5]. There are other pages that can cover them in depth.
• The prominence of the Hayabusa in Sportbike Motorcycle Drag Racing could be included, but I think perhaps efforts there should be focused on improving the page Sportbike Motorcycle Drag Racing itself rather than Suzuki Hayabusa.

Any guidance on these topics or anything else is most appreciated.

The other burning issue is the copyright status of some of the photos of custom bikes. In the Commons Custom Hayabusa category there is one image nominated for deletion [6] and another in the parent Hayabusa category [7]. The problem is the use of copyrighted and trademarked logos or characters, which you can see in the photos over there is very common on custom bikes. I can see the reasoning there, but for me it creates a dilemma. If I wanted to include a selection of customized bikes to show the range of styles, I'd want several that use copyrighted material.

If I put them here on Wikipedia, could I argue Fair Use on any one photo? I'd have to be saying I think that one is indispensable for purposes of discussion and criticism, but that's not really the case, is it? I could remove the Spider-man or Alien bike and use Superman or Transformers in its place, so there is no single image that can't be substituted. I don't need a specific one, but to properly illustrate the topic, there needs to be a few. What I'm hoping to have is 4 or 5 examples on Wikipedia and at least a dozen at WikiMedia Commons, to best give the reader a good survey, but I'm not certain what the best way to do that is. Purging all potentially infringing photos of custom bikes would give a distorted view of the custom scene; at least half the bikes I've seen use somebody's logos or characters without permission.

I've listed this under Everyday Life because that includes motorsport and other forms of recreation. Other relevant categories are Engineering and technology and Social sciences and society.

Thanks, Dbratland (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Midgrid (talk · contribs)

• Is there an article detailing the progression of fastest production motorbikes, like Fastest production car? If not, it could be worthwhile creation for the WikiProject.

• ⌛ Doing... I've added Fastest production motorcycle to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Motorcycles, and it's on my own to-do list as well.

• On the copyright issue, perhaps these two discussions concerning a car modified to resemble a Pokémon character may be of use.

• Thanks!

• I think the image used in the lead infobox, whilst aesthetically pleasing, doesn't show enough of the bike itself. I presume the fact that the photo was taken at Bonneville refers to the bike's reputation for top speed, but this isn't immediately apparent.

• ✗ Not done ...yet. I'm going to wait for more feedback on this. Some other editors seemed happy with it. My defense would be that the two infobox pictures serve the purpose of being a basic illustration of what the bike looks like, while the lead photo tries to cover more broadly what the article is about: the quest for speed, motorcycle competitions, and customizing your bike, and it shows a rider. The inanimate bike isn't notable solely on its own volition, but because of rider/consumers who made it notable.

• The sentence in the lead that begins with "Media reported values from 299 to 303 km/h for the speed agreement..." sounds a little awkward to me. I believe that it should be changed to "The media reported..." or "Media-reported values ranged from...".

• ✓ Done Reworded as "Media-reported values for the speed agreement in miles per hour were consistently 186 mph, while in kilometers per hour they varied from 299 to 303 km/h, which is typical given unit conversion rounding errors." I realized I never mentioned the consistency in the mph number, they always get that right but disagree about what that converts to.

• It seems a bit odd to me that the precise speed record and its gain from the previous record are given in the lead, but not the main body of the article, especially given the presence of the sentence "No previous motorcycle has broken the production model top speed record by such a margin".

• ✓ Done Changed to "No previous motorcycle has broken the production model top speed record by such a margin, 10 to 14 mph (16 to 23 km/h), depending on which measured speeds the source was relying on for the CBR1100XX and the GSX-1300R."

• I believe that some more technical terms can be linked in the first and second generation infoboxes; at the moment the comparison between the engine and transmission/suspension fields is quite striking in this respect.

• ✓ Done

• What does "∅" mean in the engine field of the first and second generation infoboxes?

• ✓ Done That's supposed to be the diameter symbol, representing Bore (engine), but I see now that ∅ is more correctly the empty set. I was trying to reduce clutter but it only adds confusion.

• I think the use of the phrase "speed king" might be a touch on the informal side for an encyclopaedia.

• ✓ Done

• "...the Hayabusa's handling was considered excellent for a machine of this class". Are hyper sport bikes usually difficult to ride? Could do with a little clarification here.
• "Bragging rights" could be linked, as there is an article on it(!). It depends how idiomatic the phrase is, which is something I'm not too sure about. There are a couple of other phrases that I would consider to be borderline in this respect, such as "losing face", "[speed war continuing] underground", referring to the bike's internals as being "under the skin" etc.

• ✗ Not done I'll solicit more feedback to get a better sense of how obscure these idioms are.

• The sentence "The agreement between them and the other brands has never been officially acknowledged by the manufacturers, though media sources report it via unnamed informants, and by testing the top speed of motorcycles known to be capable of exceeding the arbitrary maximum" could do with a citation.

• ✓ Done The citations just before and after this sentence are the main sources for this -- I just repeated the refs on the sentence as well as in the neighborhood.

• "...so 2001 and later Hayabusas had a steel instead of aluminum rear subframe, adding 10 pounds...". The weight gain should be converted, as the other weights in the article already are.

• ✓ Done

• "...US$13,425 in 2009 dollars" reads awkwardly due to the repetition of "dollars". I would recommend changing the phrase to something like "at 2009 prices". Is there any information available for other countries?

• ✓ Done and ⌛ Doing... There are very spotty sales figures. The data is mostly in proprietary market research reports that cost $500 to $2000. You have to just try to find a newspaper article that mentions sales. I'll add any I come across.

• I think it would be useful if the "Performance and measurements" tables were sortable, so the range between claimed values can be identified more easily.

• ✓ Done

• "Competition in the hyper sport bike segment...". Surely "market" would be a more suitable word?

• ✓ Done

• "This increased competition led to Suzuki lightly revising the GSX1300R for the 2008 model year, but delivering a large horsepower increase by fine-tuning the old engine's head, pistons and exhaust." The wording needs to be improved, as it first glance this sentence apparently contradicts itself. I would suggest changing "but delivering" to "which nevertheless delivered".

• ✓ Done

• "A redesign meant to strengthen the appearance without departing much found approval when presented to dealers and focus groups." Another sentence in which the wording could be improved. Departing much from what?

• ✓ Done

• "The target was to produce at the crankshaft more than 190 brake horsepower (142 kW)...". I would prefer "The target was to produce more than 190 brake horsepower (142 kW) at the crankshaft...".

• ✓ Done

• "Design of the new Hayabusa was done by Suzuki's Koji Yoshirua...". I would reword this to "The new Hayabusa was designed by Suzuki's Koji Yoshirua...".

• ✓ Done

• The first instance of "custom", in the planning subsection of the second generation section, should be linked to Custom motorcycle.

• ✓ Done

• "Engine changes were an increase in stroke by 2 mm..." could be changed to "Engine changes consisted of an increase in stroke by 2 mm...".

• ✓ Done

• The technical revisions section for the second generation is written in a mixture of past and present tense, and there are quite a few unconverted units in there as well.
• I found a couple of sentences separated by three spaces when correcting typos; there may be more elsewhere in the article.

• ✓ Done

• The burnout image should be cropped to remove the border.

✓ Done.

• Are any Japanese sales figures available? I imagine that Suzuki's home market would be of great significance. On a similar note, is there any evidence of whether or not the Hayabusa has affected Suzuki's total bike sales since its release?
• In India, why is the Tata Nano directly comparable to the Hayabusa? One is a microcar, the other a hyper sport bike.
• "Another top modification...". Again, this is a bit informal: I would prefer "favoured" or "most popular" instead.
• I would move the Commons link for custom Hayabusas to the bottom of the page, with the other Commons link.
• "The very popularity of lengthened and lowered Hayabusas means boundaries must be stretched and rules broken in order to get noticed." What does this mean, exactly? That some of the custom bikes are illegal? Could do with some clarification.
• "Lotus Seven-based Megabusa" makes it sound as if the vehicle is a bike based on the car. I would recaption the image "Megabusa-engined Lotus Seven".
• The paragraph on land speed records could do with an introductory sentence, along the lines of "Hayabusa engines have been used in motorcycle land speed record attempts".
• I would put the Japanese character 隼 in brackets. To be honest, I don't think that section belongs in the article in its current state: the information about the bike deriving its name from the bird could be included near the beginning of the article, and the remaining information moved to the dab page, with the hatnote moved to the top of the article.
• Does citation [39] cover the whole table or just the 2010 row? If it's the former case, then I would recommend putting the citation in a more general place, perhaps along the lines of the qualifying and race tables in this article.

That's just about all I can think of. I hope these comments are useful!--Midgrid(talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I can do most of these tomorrow as soon as I'm feeling better (: .--Dbratland (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)