Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 24 November 2010 [1].

Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one of the most controversial laws (and for some one of the most important) that was passed by Japan in the last 20 years. It firmed established the Hinomaru flag (red sun on a white field) and the song Kimigayo as the symbols of Japan. I recently had a peer review and still having people fine tune the grammar on the article.

A lot of the content has come from the article on the Japanese flag (a FA) and the Japanese anthem (a GA). Due to the recent discussions on the talk page of FAC, there is content from Google Books. The links have been pared down, but only one of the books that have a GLink I actually own (Itoh 2003). I also am not sure what should be in an law article that will be going for FAC so there might be a few things I could add. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I can't vouch for any of the Japanese refs, though their sources look substantial enough. A few nitpicks on the English language sources:-

~~Ref 14: This appears to be a reproduction of an article published in The Daily Telegraph in 2005, so the newspaper rather than the website should be shown as publisher~~

~~Refs 23 and 40: why the different formats?~~

~~Consistency required in formatting joint authors. For example see the differences between refs 24 and 53 (look for similar inconsistences).~~

Otherwise, sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened with 23 and 40 is that 23 was done a few years ago and 40 was done within the past month. I fixed the reference at 23 and the others you mentioned. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1a issues—copy-edited the first half, though I included some inline queries as well. Second half needs a runthrough as well, but I probably won't get to it today. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a few copyedits before the artice was sent here. Will address the inline issues now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question—"On July 16, it was decided that the DPJ would issue their amendment..."—who decided? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The DPJ party as a whole. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral—I believe I fixed most of the prose issues, though it could always use another run-through to make sure it's good. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the Guild of Copyeditors and I had, I think, 3 other people run through the article before I took it here. I am not sure who I can ask to copyedit this though. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm probably being too hard on the article, especially due to its dry subject matter. The prose seems reasonable enough to pass. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 21:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will still try and address the prose issues as much as I can and I thank you for what you have done. I really hope that what I said above is not a slight or insult to you, but I just feel frustrated. I'll explain more on your talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The debate surrounding the law also revealed a split in the leadership of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan and the party discipline of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and collation partners.—this sentence has been bugging me a bit—namely the liberal use of "and". —Deckiller (t-c-l) 00:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking we could use "the party discipline of the collation led by the Liberal Democratic Party" instead. Agree? I am also addressing some of your inline issues by making separate edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure—maybe the original wording is fine as is. Andy will be offering a second opinion soon. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.