Talk:Heian Palace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Heian Palace is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 18, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Link freeze

i propose a link freeze while its a faRankun (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "link freeze," but I can guess. In that spirit, I wonder when would be a good time to edit the third paragraph to insert a new link to Daijō-kan?
Proposed edit:The original role of the palace was to manifest the centralised government model adopted by Japan from China in the 7th century -- the Daijō-kan and its subsidiary Eight Ministries. The palace was designed to provide an appropriate setting for the emperor's residence, the conduct of great affairs of state, and the accompanying ceremonies.
Work on this court bureaucracy article was only completed this month; and in the normal course of events, there would have been no cause for delay. Perhaps the "Featured Article" status creates special conditions with which I'm as yet unfamiliar? The tag at the top of this page does encourage me to act now ...? In any case, edits can be easily reverted. I would hope this note shows that I gave your proposed caveat the consideration it deserved. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] older entries

I added back the removed geographical coordinates of Suzakumon. They were moved from this article to the article on Suzakumon, where they are obviosly also appropriate. However, the location of the main gate (together with the schematic map of Heian-kyō) provides a convenient way of giving the location of the old palace in the main article and finding it on online maps. Alternatives would be to give the centre point (which would be less useful for locating on maps) or all four corners of the palace (too many coordinates). Stca74 08:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Fg2 12:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination spring 2007

[edit] GA fail

I have failed this article based on the GA criteria, which almost seems a shame because bsaed purely on quality of writing and effort expended etc the article is in very good shape, it simply fails to meet a few of the criteria formally demanded of a good article. Some of these are trivial to address but some might take some time to fix. In detail:

  • 1a clear prose and good grammar:
  • A few spelling errors such as "adopted by Japan from Chine". Generally fine though, pass on this criterion

*1b MOS layout:

  • cannot find MOS page referencing it but the constant use of bold text is unnecessary and distracting and I'm sure it doesn't adhere to MOS - fail on this criteria
  • 2a provides references:
    • fail on this criteria, use of ISBN numbers in cites is welcome and good to see but there is no bibliography provided at all
  • 2b cites sources:
  • fails on this criteria due to failure to provide page numbers for the cites
  • 2c no original research
  • passes on this criteria, no evidence of original research at all
  • 3a addresses major topics:
  • passes on this criteria, covers all expected topics
  • 3b stays focused:
  • passes on this criteria
  • 4 netural and unbiased:
  • pass on this criteria, article seems neutral
  • 5 stable:
  • pass on this crtieria, no sign of any ongoing edit war etc
  • 6 images appropriate and licensed:
  • articles seem to be appropriately licences and are relevant to the article. Schematic plans are an unexpected bonus

Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submitted to GA Review to get clarity on guidelines for citing sources and providing references

Thanks for the essentially positive GA review above. I have addressed some of the criteria while leaving some untouched. In more detail:
  • 1b MOS layout: matter of taste. I did not find any guidelines either, but decided to cut most of the bold-faced letters, leaving only the names of the three main compounds within the palace. Don't know if this improves readability or not, but I don't object either.
  • 2a provides references: Here I do not understand the comment. The References section (to which the footnotes point) is the bibliography of the article. In addition to it, further web site bibliography is provided in External links. I checked the GA criteria and the links to WP:CITE according to which (i) a section for listing references separately from notes is optional and (ii) if there is a separate bibliography section, it is usually not meant to repeat the items in the Notes/References section. And in any case, the References section indeed contains all the sources I would incoprprate in a separate Bibliography section.
  • 2b cites sources: According to WP:CITE again, Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. As the references in the article do not fall under the first set of items, page numbers are not required by the GA criteria. In fact, as there are several notes to a reasonably small number of sources, providing the page numbers for each note would require an individual item for each note, with 13 lines for the first article referenced, completely cluttering the article. The articles referenced are also relatively short, and thus finding the corresponding pages for verification purposes is straightforward.
My understanding of the GA criteria is that the article indeed passes 2a and 2b. This is further supported by a quick review of recently passed GA articles and also FA articles (e.g., Aikido among Japan-related articles), where the same approach to references and footnotes can be seen. Thus, in order to see if my interpretation of the citation guidelines find support, I'm putting this article up to GA review. Stca74 08:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First, and most importantly, the GA review has not closed. It has exactly one recommendation. Although that recommendation is in your favor, that is not necessarily indicative of what the final outcome will be. Promoting your own article to GA prior to consensus being reached at GA/R is completely unacceptable. I'm assuming you didn't understand the process and promoted it in good faith, however, you are now aware that things don't work that way. As noted at the top of WP:GA/R, several editors will review the article and make recommendations. An archivist will read all of the discussion, weigh the arguments, and determine consensus. Once that determination has been made that archivist will go through the steps to list the article or not.

Past that, there is a template one can use to cite the same reference but with different page numbers on one line. Rather than simply having the alphabet appear beside the reference number, there will be the alphabet with page numbers in parenthesis beside each letter. I'll have to do a little searching to find it, but it shouldn't take long. I just found it a couple days or so ago. LaraLove 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point that Stca74 did not promote his own article in any way. I did. I was nit aware of the GA/R procedures at the time, and it seemed to me that it was actually passing. This is why I jumped to promotions. Thanks for the GA/R crash course. --SidiLemine 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been listed at WP:GA after unanimous consensus. The archived discussion can be found [Palace|here]. Good work. In improving this article to meet the standards of GA, you have improved Wikipedia. Also notice in the discussion that one editor, who frequent reviews articles nominated for FA, feels that the only thing standing between this article and FA is page numbers. Hopefully those can be obtained. Good luck with the possible future FA nomination. LaraLove 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous links

[User:Gryffindor]]'s edit removed the following links, identifying them as "superfluous" ...:

  • Kyoto Gosho
  • List of palaces
  • Ōmiya Palace

I have restored them temporarily in order to provide an opportunity for further discussion. My arguments for maintaining these links are three-fold:

  1. I think they should stay because I personally found them helpful.
  2. If they are, in fact, deemed to be superfluous, then I've misunderstood the flexible criteria for deciding what to keep and what to exclude from a list of internal and external links. I will need to re-visit a number of articles where my decision-making about links has been flawed; and I'll need to re-think how I view this aspect of editing in future.
  3. The links were part of this article in December 2007 when it was determined to be a "Featured Article"; ergo, these specific links in this particular article has received the imprimatur of whatever broad Wiki-consensus preceded that FA designation. In my view, this means that the removal of links which are effectively "certified" (in a manner of speaking) requires a more expanded explanation than will fit within the limited confineds of an edit summary.

I'm confident that the third of these arguments has merit, but the more ideosyncratic nature of my initial arguments leaves them always open to question. For that reason, my interest in why User:Gryffindor removed these links is not merely rhetorical. I'm interested in the reasoning and evaluation process so that my own decision-making can be better informed when I confront similar situations in future. --Tenmei (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced information on typhoon damage

New content on typhoon destruction to the palace has been added by user:205.202.240.119 (talk) but is unsupported by references to any source. This information can not be found in the standard sources used for the article. Further, the name of the supposed typhoon ("grazana") does not appear to conform to Japanese phonology, making the addition somewhat suspicious. I would ask the anonymous contributor to provide sources for the added information (in addition to fixing the broken language). Otherwise I'm inclined to remove the addition to maintain the article at FA standards. Stca74 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With no sources forthcoming, I've reverted the added text. Stca74 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)