Talk:Utsuro-bune/GA1

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 13:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll tackle this one! Looks to be a very interesting read Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion
Judging from the above I m guessing the major concern is 2b. The Good article criteria only requires references for certain statements (direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged) so if an unreliable source is used on something that doesn't fall under this definition it can be ignored. Likely to be challenged is quite subjective though. I will offer a second opinion on the references, if there is more that you are concerned about let me know. The final decision on whether to list this will lie with . AIR corn (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 2b does sound like the concern; for instance the source yaji-kita seems to be a blog (unreliable in principle, though this one seems to be discussing the issues seriously). The prose is not bad, and overall the sourcing looks reasonable; and given that the sources mostly are short, not sure that page numbering would help much. More of an issue is having a shared English translation of good quality for readers and editors to consult - the manuscripts could be on Wikisource with translations as they're out of copyright. Broadly agree with User:Aircorn that if no-one is likely to challenge then the sources are allowable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Difficult. It can be argued that the references meet the GA criterium 2b, but it can also be challenged that reliable sources are given. It really is a borderline situation. The only somewhat scientific source I could find after a short search, is the mentioning of "mysterious "hollow boat" (utsuro-bune)" in the first note of an essay which can be found here: . However, this text is not directly relevant to this Wikipedia article.
 * It seems there's just extremely little published in modern (English) scholarship. There might be many reliable Japanese sources, but those aren't very useful here, unless a proper translation is provided.
 * If it's any help to you, I have to say I'm reluctant to rate this article as a GA - I probably wouldn't pass it - but this is my personal opinion, certainly not a good, objective reason.Michael! (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I'd really like to see this one pass, at its current stage I just can't push it through; the problems are still there. Sorry, and all the best for your future Wiki exploits! Midnightblueowl (talk)