Talk:Government of Japan/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

 Sorry about the delay, let's get started. Lead
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No need to italicize "pre-war" or "post war".✅
 * The first usage of the word "post-war" is unecessary.✅
 * Everything in the lead should be in the body. That is not the case, however, and it needs a rewrite.

Body
 * No need to italicize "nominally" or "actual power"✅
 * Too many duplicate links that need to be fixed.✅
 * Disambiguation link to "State act"✅

Referencing
 * Up to half of this article is unreferenced. This needs to be fixed.
 * Three sources from YouTube. This source is generally considered unreliable.✅

Coverage
 * 13 sources, seems quite small for such a large article.
 * Shouldn't there be some history on the government?

Neutrality
 * "actual power" seems unneutral. I suggest that you remove "actual"✅

Images
 * There are too many images in the article. Please remove some.


 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay, I was quite busy for the past few days.
 * Is it okay for me to move the paragraphs in the lead to a new section like an overview with a little touch on it's history?
 * I'd heavily recommend to just move the history part to the body and leave the rest where it is. I think you should also add a little more on it' history (for example history before WWII).--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, can I make a new heading in the body with a title "Overview and history" and write it's history there? I can simplify the lead as well by moving it there. I think it will be better than writing onto the existing body, as it's not the main focus of the article. TheInfernoX (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is the part of the article that introduces the readers to the article's subject. Check this article for a general structure I'd recommend.
 * I have removed the words "actual" and some redundant images, and have replaced the YouTube sources with more reliable ones. TheInfernoX (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have made all the necessary corrections. Can you please check? Thanks! &#126;TheInfernoX (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) I have added the necessary citations. Can you please check again? &#126;TheInfernoX (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Done. Citations added. &#126;TheInfernoX (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Thank you! &#126;TheInfernoX (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A few more citations, please.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked two more that are necessary.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Passing, Well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)