Comments
- Seems a shame there's no image for the lead, as it stands it doesn't quite capture my attention.
- "Most of the structures are located in temples, one is a castle." Perhaps (for my taste), start with "While most..."
- Followed your suggestion. Done. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should you consistently captialise national treasure?
- Done. bamse (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You say there are 14 items, then you say the Akasaka Palace is presented along with the 14 pre-Meiji treasures, so that'd be 15?
- Yes, there are 14 items from 15th to 17th century and one item from the 20th century. Not sure what you are referring to. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just not sure why you make such an effort to differentiate between the first 14 and the last one. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Agency for Cultural Affairs designates national treasures in a number of categories: historical residences, modern residences, castles, shrines,... The Akasaka palace is in another category than the other 14 structures. It differs from these 14 structures in the same way as the donjon of Hikone castle (a national treasure in the castle category) for instance. It only appears in this list, since having a List of National Treasures of Japan (modern residences) with just one entry would not be a good idea. bamse (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get it, but, as the title suggests, this is a list of "residences", regardless of era, so I suggest you merge the one new one with all the old ones throughout the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged the two tables. As far as I can see, the only distinction between old and new residences left is in the lead. Because it is important to realize that there are two types of residences (basically traditional Japanese and western influenced) in this list, I would prefer to mention this in the lead. bamse (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- shoin is overlinked in the lead.
- Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- favoured vs characterized - BritEng vs USEng - I don't mind which you pick but be consistent within the list.
- Fixed in favor of USEng. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "more simple" why not just simpler?
- Done. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 to 8 - two to eight
- Done. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why is teahouse in italics suddenly in the last para of the lead?
- Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple of rows in the first table appear to be coloured, why?
- As in other national treasure lists (see for instance List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines)), the different background colors mark cities of the same prefecture. I admit that for this simple table these colors are not as important as for the readability of more advanced tables such as the one in the shrine list. In order to keep the same style in all the lists, I'd like to keep this color here as well.
- Is there a key? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, no. The background color is used only for readability and does not need any explanation in my opinion. After all, the headers of the tables are also in another color without having a key. bamse (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're saying the color indicates something (like same prefecture) then this should be (a) denoted somewhere and (b) not just denoted by color, per WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The color does not indicate anything. All I did is to use alternating colors for different rows (rows with respect to the first, "Prefecture", column) in order to increase readability. The information conveyed by the color is also accessible through the general table structure (including rowspans), so there is no problem with WP:ACCESS. Interestingly Template:Navbox which is present in more than 1.2 million articles uses alternating colors for rows as a default: See the navbox in Template:Navbox#Parameter_list which has different backgrounds for "list1" and "list2". On the same page it says: The default behavior is to add striped colors (white and gray) to odd/even rows, respectively, in order to improve readability. These should not be changed except in extraordinary circumstances. There is neither a key nor an explanation of these stripes when using the template in an article. bamse (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so it's purely aesthetic. Then why is it use in just one of the three tables in that section? It's a little confusing... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is the only table with a rowspan (Kyoto (Prefecture) extends over two rows). I agree that this color feature may be not that important here since it is a small table. But for large tables such as this it does help for readability in my opinion. To have the same look in all the national treasure lists, I'd like to keep it for the table in this list as well but don't mind removing it if you think it is too confusing. bamse (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At last, my brain box is in gear. I understand. Apologies for being so slow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't Date be Period in the table heading?
- It contains the year of construction (if known), so "Date" should be fine. The same heading is used in other national treasure lists by the way. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the table in the Statistics section. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. Changed "Date" to "Period". bamse (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "four rooms with ten (alcove), eight, six" don't understand "ten (alcove)" here.
- There are four rooms of specified sizes. The ten mat room has an attached alcove. Replaced "alcove"->"with attached alcove" to make it more understandable. bamse (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the original sorting based on? I can't seem to get the table back to its default sort after I've sorted with any of the headings... I guess date...
- I shuffled the table around a bit. The initial order is now (as in other national treasure lists) based on the database for cultural properties. The database and therefore this list is ordered geographically traversing Japan from northeast to southwest. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't overlink things like shake if they're in the same cell in the table. By all means do it from line to line, but within the same entry, no.
- Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- board[nb 5], - move note to other side of comma.
- Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no real benefit in the separate table of one entry with identical entries. Why not merge them?
- For consistency, the separate table (Akasaka Palace) would deserve a separate list article since it is in another category of national treasures (modern residences versus old residences). For obvious reasons I merged the Akasaka Palace into the old residences list. In order to emphasize that the palace is in another category, I created the table of one entry. If you think it is better merged with the other table, I'll do that.bamse (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged the two tables.bamse (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a number of spaced hyphens in the references, these should be spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH.
- Replaced hyphens with en-dashes in all the "JAANUS – Japanese Architecture and Art Net User System" references. Hope those were all.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I started to fix some of the issues (to be continued). bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
