Talk:Johnny Kitagawa/GA1

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


 * I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Images
No images present in the article. Could try posting queries at talkpages of related WikiProjects, and searching flickr. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revie. I'll try the WikiProjects idea, but I don't have much hope. I've tried Flickr, and there are a couple of pictures of him on the net, but nothing meeting fair use. He doesn't even post his picture on his website. The best I could find at Commons were pictures of Yoyogi Park, where he met the members of his first group, but the pictures just didn't relate to the text enough for me to justify including them. As the article states, he's very thorough about controlling the media protrayal of himself and his acts - if you look at the band articles, you'll see none of them have photos either. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah okay thanks, no worries - this won't hold up the review. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image portion of review = ✅. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability
Nothing of note on the talk. Only recent thing I saw in edit history was this, which appears to have been vandalism. Am I correct in that there are no ongoing conflicts/stability issues? Cirt (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No issues there. When it appeared in DYK it got a couple of thousand views, but still only pulled in 2 edits. It's been quite stable since I expanded it. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability portion of review = ✅. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 20, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * Could use a copyedit from one or two previously uninvolved editors for flow.
 * Consider posting a request at the talk pages of related WikiProjects and at WP:GOCE.


 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * Cite 11 is not formatted properly, could use WP:CIT.
 * The other cites do not have the works italicized, they could be in the wrong field (should be in work=). They could also be wikilinked.


 * 3. Broad in coverage?: I find it hard to believe there is not more information in additional sources on this notable individual than just these 11 references.


 * 4. Neutral point of view?: I have a concern about weighting, would like to get a take from another reviewer on this.


 * 5. Article stability? See above.
 * 6. Images?: See above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Request made at WP:Japan and WP:GOCE. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Independent copy edit done (thanks Recognizance)! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. Will work on it this weekend. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed ref 11, just remembered about the italics, will go back and fix that after this post.Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 3. I will look further. I don't think that there is much else out there by way of reliable sources that are online, and I've done a Nexis search to get this far. There are many many mentions of him, but precious few that meet the reliable source standard. And of course, my Japanese isn't so hot. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much to show here. I did find another source, a recent article (Feb 2009) from The Guardian, currently at reference 7, which I included to support the proposition that Kitagawa employs a formula with his acts. Unfortunately, it doesn't help in expanding the non-lurid aspects of Kitagawa's life. Since the allegations are very thoroughly covered all ready, and frankly, because I didn't like the tone of this Guardian article, I didn't use it further. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 4. I assume that you're referring to sexual harassment section. I will try to downplay that a bit. The problem is that the one time that most of the reliable sources (esp the New York Times) wrote about him was in the context of the these allegations. And, of course, the hearing before the Diet, while probably a bit of a political stunt, was highly unusual and noteworthy. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm probably too close to it at this point, but I just couldn't decide on a reasonable area to exclude. Is there a particular part that you'd suggest cutting to avoid undue weight? I consider myself a huge BLP proponent, but the allegations here are so thoroughly sourced I have a tough time making myself cut anything. And, the weighting of allegations/accomplishments in this article is, I think, at least as favorable as the source articles. As I said, I'm probably too close to it. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the above work - I'd just feel more comfortable having a second GA reviewer look it over, is all. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Do you know I only now noticed that you had requested the 2nd opinion (*Headsmack*) Now I understand why you needed to keep your review intact. Swift I am not. ;) Thanks for the work on the review. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries here too. :P Cirt (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion
Coming here to offer a second opinion, as requested on the nominations page. Unfortunately, my inclination would be to fail this for the following reasons:
 * Well written?
 * I find the prose text very stilted in several places because of a lack of compound sentences. In the ==Early life== section, there's a bit that reads While walking through Tokyo's Yoyogi Park he encountered a group of boys playing baseball. He recruited them to form a singing group, acting as their manager. He named the group "The Johnnies". Another instance of this is the entire opening paragraph of the section headed ==The formula==. Basically, it needs a rewrite to improve the "flow" of the article's prose.
 * I can see a few instances of the same words being used several times in few sentences in a noticeably repetitive fashion, e.g. He named the group "The Johnnies". The Johnnies achieved a measure of success by using a then-novel formula of mixing attractive performers singing popular music with coordinated dance routines. The Johnnies were the first all-male pop group in Japan...(in ==Early life==); Kitagawa was able to expand his sphere of influence to include television, as his performers regularly appear on television, with many appearing on their own variety programs (in ==Major success==). The prose needs improved to sort this as well.
 * The section heading ==The formula== doesn't seem to be MoS-compliant (see WP:Headings).
 * I don't think the allegegations of sexual impropriety should be in the lede at all, for two reasons. First, per the very strictly enforced Biographies of living persons policy, these are very serious allegations being made without supporting citations (until later in the article). Second, it's not strictly speaking what he's notable for. He's notable (in the WP sense) as a boy-band svengali, and would still merit an article had the allegations against him never been made. But obversely, had he not been so famous, the allegations by themselves would never have warranted an article about him.
 * The success of Kitagawa's performers led to increased profitability, as Johnny & Associates generated 2.9 billion yen in annual profits at the height of the boy band boom. During 1997, performers belonging to the talent agency appeared in more than 40 television programs and another 40 commercials. The success of his company has made Kitagawa one of the richest men in Japan. This section seems to be ordered wrongly. Surely the first and third sentences go together, while the stuff about adverts and TV programmes should be further up in the section?
 * There's still inconsistency with regards to references; sometimes they appear immediately after the period,and sometimes with a space between the period and the inline citation.
 * Neutral point of view?
 * Per the original reviewer, I also have concerns about this. Not so much because a particular point of view is being pushed, but because despite Kitagawa being notable for his >50-year career as a boy-band manager, by far the largest (and best-written) section is the one concerning allegations of sexual impropriety that did not even lead to a criminal prosecution against him, never mind a conviction. Per WP:UNDUE, you either need to expand the rest of the article, or cut back on this section so that it gets a coverage in proportion to the rest of his life. As I already said, he's a notable man against whom allegations were made. But by themselves, the allegations do not contribute to his notability. I wish ==Early life== and ==Major success== were as detailed as the last two sections.
 * There doesn't seem to be any explanation of why he specializes only in boy-bands, which means there's a lack of context for the box-quote. Given the wording—"he only handles boys"—I think it projects a slightly inappropriate tone. I don't think for a second that it was deliberate, but it's sitting right above a huge section on alleged kiddie-fiddling.
 * Broad in coverage?
 * As mentioned above, compared to the allegations which are covered in depth, the article really skims over the early sections covering his career. Would you have submitted the article for a GA review if the sexual allegations had never happened, and therefore did not exist to pad out the article?

Sorry to rain on the parade, but if the original reviewer wants to fail it I'd concur. It looks quite a bit below the Good Article standard to me. Apologies, --DeLarge (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up
After looking over the above points raised by the 2nd reviewer I must agree. Thanks for the quality improvements so far, but I think it is best to allow more time for improvements than would be appropriate within the format of a GA Hold. Please renominate for GA consideration when the above has been adequately addressed. My thanks to for the 2nd review. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll clean it up to at least let the article qualify for B-class, then I'll see if I can locate sources that will allow further expansion. Thanks to you both for taking the time to review it, and the helpful suggestions. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)