Talk:Hiroh Kikai/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

   • A one sentence lead is not acceptable, the lead should be a concise executive summary of the article. I would suggest three or four paragraphs. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I would suggest that there should be enough for two paragraphs at a minimum. Jezhotwells (talk)  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Ref # 25 [1] is dead.  Done

   Yes, but its replacement is alive. -- Hoary (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Books by Kikai are not RS. see refs #14, #41, #51,  Done As far as I can ascertain other references are OK.

   • What was #51 is now another recycling of #47. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   • Though by now it's something else again. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

   • What was #14 is now #17, which I hope cuts the mustard. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • The lead needs expanding and some referncing needs to be fixed as per above. On hold Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

   All OK now, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Regarding the objection to the lead, I could imagine some expansion to the opening paragraph, though three or four paragraphs seems extreme and inevitably liable to unnecessary repetitiveness.

As for the citation/reference objections, the dead link can probably be replaced (I'll leave that to Hoary). The second objection makes no sense. Kikai's books are perfectly reasonable sources for information of the kind cited, i.e. biographical details. The passages in question are not contentious, evaluative, or potentially prejudicial of his works or activities, but simple career data. These should remain as is. Pinkville (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/2008/09/review_asakusa_portraits_by_hi_1.html was not captured on web.archive.org, so we will have to completely replace the ref. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the introduction should be expanded; I'll do this, though certainly not to the tune of "three or four paragraphs". ¶ I've fixed the dead link. ¶ The second objection does make sense, at least in part: the claim that an exhibition took place shouldn't rest on an account by the exhibitor. I've now altered what was note 51 (and no longer is) accordingly. I agree with Pinkville about the two other notes; still, I might be able to improve them. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Two paragraphs would be fine for the lead. I accept three or four might be too much. You know the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This should all be fixed within 48 hours; stay tuned. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The concern unaddressed so far is over the footnote now numbered 43, which comes at the end of the sentence Kikai was one of thirteen Japanese photographers invited by EU-Japan Fest to photograph the twenty-six nations of the European Union; he spent twenty-one days in Malta in September 2005 and a short period in Portugal in October 2004, travelling widely in both countries. Actually the footnote says nothing about the half of the sentence preceding the semicolon, but as this first half is obvious from the most cursory inspection of either of the EU-Fest books a footnote seems otiose. I don't have any further info on when he went; it seems to me (as I believe it does to Pinkville) that this kind of stuff can be taken on trust from the photographer. (It would be different if the book was not published, or the claims were for surprisingly short or long durations, or were for otherwise arduous experiences.) If this doesn't satisfy, I can simply remove the unsatisfactorily sourced assertion. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)