Talk:Tsugaru clan/GA1

GA Review

I see no problems with this article. I did not catch any spelling or grammar errors, and I believe the writing style flows well. It includes all the relevant material, from the claimed origins of the clan to its post-Meiji fate, and includes plenty of in-line citations as well as listed bibliographic sources. The section on family heads appears complete, follows the standard format established by User:Tadakuni. Images are used well. Lots of good links to relevant topics, good use of kanji & romaji for various Japanese terms.

Before I unilaterally pass the article, however, I think we should wait for a few more comments, Support or otherwise. LordAmeth (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest moving the image of Tsugaru (Ōura) Tamenobu so it floats to the right in order to avoid indenting the section header. Also, there's not any reason to include the "This article contains Japanese text..." template as the use of the {{nihongo}} template should provide that information without any additional templates. Other than that, the only suggestion I have is to possible expand the article so it contains more information. It's a fairly short article right now, albeit a well-referenced short article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tsugaru clan is a Good article candidate. I looked at the article according to the good article criteria.

Criterion 1: Well written.

The article is well written. The only points that struck me were the most minor things like inconsistencies in macrons on "Honshu."

I'm not an expert on the general Manual of Style, but the article appears to follow its guidelines. The lead section provides context and an accessible summary of the article. It could be tightened, and expressions like "relieved of office" could be rephrased to clarify that this was not a punitive action against the Tsugaru, but (as the linked article discusses) a nationwide change.

Regarding layout, "Edo Era" should be "Edo era" while "Family Heads" should be "Family heads." Likewise, a few more sections have capital letters that don't conform to the layout guidelines. There are "Main article" templates for both Hirosaki Domain and Kuroishi Domain, but these are the same article. Again, easily changed. I'm not sure I read the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Layout#Order of appendices carefully enough, but I think "See also" should be earlier in the article (and have a lowercase "a"). Categories and interlanguage links are appropriate, and images are relevant, encyclopedic, and of a suitable number for the length of the article.

The article explains jargon, defining terms such as "daimyo" and O-Ie Sōdō.

There's a statement that qualifies as "weasel wording." The second sentence in the section "The Tsugaru in the Edo Era" reads, "As the clan's territories were surrounded by clans that had decided to support the Eastern Army, it may have had little choice." This can be reworded by simply stating "The clan's neighbors all supported the Eastern Army." Either way, a citation would be prudent here.

The article has extensive lists at the end. Although it would be possible someday to rewrite all these as text, that might be a good project for another year. At this stage in Wikipedia's development, the lists should be welcomed as an encyclopedic appendix. If there is any objection to their inclusion in the article, they can be spun off into a separate article.

Criterion 2: Factually accurate and verifiable.

Without access to the references, I can't check the facts (and don't have the time or inclination). The references appear comprehensive, authoritative and relevant.

The sentence "The Tsugaru clan initially claimed descent from the Kawachi Genji branch of the Minamoto clan; in later years, this claim of origin would change to the Konoe family, which was a branch of the Fujiwara clan." would benefit from a citation. The Japanese Wikipedia has similar material.

Apart from the sentence about "may have had little choice" but to support the Eastern Army, nothing struck me as what Wikipedia calls "original research."

Criterion 3: Broad in its coverage.

The article addresses the main aspects of the Tsugaru Clan, and stays focused on the subject.

Criterion 4: Neutral.

The article represents the subject fairly and without bias.

Criterion 5: Stable.

Almost all editing to the article has been done in the last month, and by a single editor. It is free of edit wars.

Criterion 6: Illustrated by images.

As I've noted, the images are suitable. There are three. On my computer, the main text of the article appears in three screenfuls, with one image each. They are a photograph (by me) of the clan's castle, a painting of a member of the clan, and a map showing the clan's territory in the context of modern Japan. All three are tagged as public domain. All have appropriate captions.

Some two dozen edits have been done to the article since I looked at it. Many of the suggestions I made have been put into effect. Fg2 (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
See WP:REDBLUE--there are a disproportionate number of red links in this article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
ON HOLD for up to a week. Please turn some links blue or delink them until you're ready to create the articles to improve the visual appearance. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]