Wikipedia:Featured article review/Heian Palace/archive1


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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC).

Heian Palace

 * Notified: User talk:Stca74, User talk:91.153.253.39, User talk:Ineffablebookkeeper (no other users with > 2% edits) WP:JAPAN, WP:ARCH Aug 2022 notice

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the talk page notice, it has a large % of unsourced material, and the article is predominantly sourced to one author. One would suspect that an imperial palace would have been written about by quite a few people. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article has remained remarkably stable since being promoted to featured article status more than 15 years ago. During this time the featured article criteria regarding verifiability and citing sources have not substantially changed, as can be seen by checking the history of the criteria page. Also (as far as I am aware) no such new research literature that would materially affect the article has appeared (at least in English) since 2007.
 * The low number of cited sources is explained by the main reference (McCullough & McCullough 1980) being by far the most comprehensive English language source on the palace and its history, written by two leading experts and working as a comprehensive survey on the topic. It is itself thoroughly researched and cites both primary sources and very well established Japanese secondary sources (vol. 1 of 京都の歴史, an extensive general history of Kyoto). While writing what still remains the bulk of the article, a great care was taken to check that all statements are backed by the listed references - in practice McCullough & McCullough in most places.
 * During the original featured article nomination process the number of inline references to the sources was indeed increased to a level deemed adequate. In theory essentially every sentence could have inline reference to one of the listed sources, but such extreme citation intensity would not be normal for this type of well-established topic. There is also a fairly extensive discussion about this issue on the article's FA nomination discussion page, where the community consensus was that the quantity and scope of citations and inline references is appropriate.
 * The specific issue of citing a larger number of sources (such as Morris's book World of the Shining Prince) was covered during the original nomination process and the outcome was that inline references to multiple sources just for the sake of it is not necessary if and when the same information is found in the cited main reference(s). Instead, additional sources were added as a Further Reading section.
 * With this background, I do not think there is a substantial need to increase number of inline references or multiply the explicitly referenced sources simply to increase citation metrics.
 * But obviously if there are specific points where there is a consensus about a need for new explicit source references, such should naturally be added on a case-by-case basis. However, unless new material be introduced, such references would most likely again point to the already cited main sources. I would therefore suggest that any discussion be focussed on such specific questions about the article's content, if any. Stca74 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the 15 years since the FAC, there have been substantial changes to the feature article criteria, and older articles haven't been grandfathered into the new standards. Hog Farm Talk 13:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is of course debatable what qualifies as "substantial". However, the 2007 version about citing sources is says:
 * (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c).
 * whereas the current version says:
 * consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
 * Apart from moving to footnotes only I see no real change.
 * Both refer to criterion (1c), which in 2007 was:
 * "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
 * whereas the current version is:
 * well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
 * Apart from rewording and reordering most of the old version, the current one is a little less prescriptive. Both call for inline citations where appropriate, which as as pointed out above does not imply "for each and every claim". In any case it is very hard to see any tightening in these criteria as written since 2007.
 * It is also worth pointing out that verifiability (still) states a clear preference for English sources. And as stated above, the article already relies on the most comprehensive ones there are.
 * The reason to respond at length here and above is in particular to argue in general in favour of a reasoned approach to the use of source citations instead of an application of mechanistic citation counts. In this particular case I would argue that calls for significant changes should be made only after actually consulting the primary sources cited and comparing the article's claims to them. And then should any contentious claims be found, address those specifically and not the article in the abstract. Stca74 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think de facto nowadays people expect citations for more or less everything except primary school level stuff, even at generic things like T:DYK, WP:OTD and so forth Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that indeed so regardless of subject matter? I can see that the generally more and more polarised discourse on the web would have become reflected in more stringent citation standards for (the increasingly common?) contentious topics, while similar tacit reinterpretation of the criteria may not have taken place on more "placid" issues. (My primary activity here is on mathematics articles, where the nature of the subject matter leads to hardly any disputes regarding factual claims — style and level of presentation is another issue...)
 * In general, I would prefer that the criteria policies be updated explicitly if that is where the community wants to move, instead of a silent reinterpretation of unchanged rules slowly taking place and accumulating.
 * But be that as it may, in the interest of advancing the discussion on this specific article:
 * 1. Regarding the issue of the low number of different sources cited: As I have written above, I am afraid not much can be done. I am not aware of any substantial newer English-language sources that would not just refer back to the sources used already — in particular McCullough & McCullough (1980). I think one should accept that this topic is niche (at the very least from English language audience perspective): an ancient Japanese palace that ceased to exist in visible physical form some 800 years ago, leaving almost no archaeologically accessible traces and being mainly covered by ancient Japanese literary sources. Having such detailed and well-researched material in English as the appendix of McCullough & McCullough is indeed a positive surprise if anything. I do not believe that this state of affairs should be a reason to declassify the article (it would be another matter if no reliable sources existed). On the other hand, should someone find new suitable sources they should obviously be used.
 * 2. Regarding density of inline citations: It should be obvious from my comments on this page that, according to my old-school estimation, the article already cites its (few) sources sufficiently. If this is felt to be too little, then I would kindly ask for specific comments on what claims and/or sections should have inline citations added. And I remind that most if not all of these would point again to various pages of the McCullough & McCullough appendix. As the article stands now, almost all paragraphs have at least one inline citation (apart from the lead, where I believe it is still considered good form to have few or no inline citations). In proposing additional citation points, please also take into account
 * guidelines on bundling citations to same source(s) for entire paragraphs. Stca74 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An obvious point with a needed citation is " Its placement right next to the Inner Palace shows the influence of the Shingon sect during the early Heian Period.". Is this conclusion being drawn from a source, or is this original research? Hog Farm Talk 13:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue it is more of an extension of the preceding sentence, but added an explicit reference. Stca74 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC, largely uncited. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Now cited, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC citation needed issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Referring to Featured article review (first two bullet points under stage 2 (FAR)), these are rather premature recommendations: proposals on actual concrete improvements (and implementation thereof) has hardly started (one proposed addition, completed). Stca74 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC per above, older citation standards weren't grandfathered in when the featured article criteria were tightened. Low Memorial Library is an example of a recent building FA that follows the modern citation standards. Hog Farm Talk 19:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC Statements in Wikipedia articles should have inline citations that verify the information, and an article cannot run at DYK, let alone become a GA or FA, unless there is an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum. Some statements that need citations are, "The Jingi-kan, the final standing section of the palace, remained in use until 1585.", "The Daidairi was a walled rectangular area extending approximately 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) from north to south..." and "The Heian Jingū shrine in Kyoto includes an apparently faithful reconstruction of the Daigokuden in somewhat reduced scale." If someone is interested in addressing these concerns, I am willing to add citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Struck, due to comment below. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to add references where deemed necessary according to the current interpretation of the criteria. As I wrote above, my old-time experience with the FA process supplemented by re-reading the criteria-as-written did not give me a good idea of what the current requirements would be in practice. Hence your offer to add citation-needed tags would be much appreciated. Stca74 (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: Requested inline refs added for Heian Jingū as replica and the Jingi-kan site remaining in use until 1585. Please notice that two inline references already existed for the dimensions of the Daidairi, at the end of the very sentence (McCullough&McCullough (1980) and McCullough (1999)). Stca74 (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * you have (above) either old or dated or duplicate statements for this FAR; could you strike/de-bold/update as needed? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my move to FARC declaration above. Sorry for the delayed reply; I'm on the tail end of a nasty sinus infection. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of Primary sources, it seems improbable that all of that text is covered by Farris 188; pls confirm. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed that is correct: the Farris ref covers only the last sentence. I will add references to earlier parts of the paragraph asap. Stca74 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And thanks, I see you have added "citation needed" tags in a number of places. I will attend to those on Sunday; looks like all will get refs to McCullough&McCullough. Stca74 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx ! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: All "citation needed" tags as well as the need for additional citations for Primary sources section have been dealt with. Please do continue to add tags if current coverage remain unsatisfactory, and I will address them. However, I will be away from my library for the next week, so may not be able to react immediately. Stca74 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stca74, do you feel you've addressed all of the concerns raised above? If so, I'd suggest asking those reviewers to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes - indeed, my update of 30 Oct was intended to signal that. Should I do something beyond posting that request to revisit the issue here on this page? (I've been away from more active editing for a long time...) Stca74 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ↑. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to this at some point in the next week. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I've left a few comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Heian Palace/archive1. My primary concern is a jargon issue, as several components of the palace structure are mentioned before they are explained. Hog Farm Talk 21:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for comments. Made changes and left reply at the subpage of the detailed comments. Stca74 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep here, although I'm so unfamiliar with the subject matter that I hope someone else can weigh in here as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The image at the top of the article had a "image reference needed" tag that needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I reviewed the article: I made some prose changes, added alt text and changed px to upright. It looks like it's in good shape, and I'm leaving some notes below:
 * Image reference needed tags need to be resolved
 * There are some sources in "Further reading" that are not used in the article. Can they be used as sources (especially the 2014 source)?
 * Please ping when the above are addressed and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for edits and comments. I've added the requested image references. In addition, I reviewed the "Further reading" section for use for further inline citations. Here's a summary (the first two have been added by me long time ago, the later two very recently by others):
 * The 1925 Ponsonby-Fane article is essentially covered by the the 1956 reference (used for one inline citation);
 * The Japanese reference (from 1970) is the most important reference for much of the cited English language work, but given the language issue and the fact that citation coverage already appears to be good, I see no reason to add direct citations;
 * I do not have access to the 2008 UNESCO publication (in French); it is cited in a few places in Stavros (2014) but not in a way that implies anything immediately useful for the present article; and
 * Stavros (2014) is an interesting summary of Kyoto's urban development over a 1000-year period. But as a consequence its wide focus it has rather limited material devoted to Heian period and even smaller part of that is devoted on the palace. Essentially everything (and much more) is covered in the already inline-cited sources. And indeed, McCullough's article in Cambridge History of Japan (vol. 2) appears to be the primary source for the palace (and much else relating to the Heian period) in Stavros's book. Additional inline citations to this book would become indirect references to the already cited sources (which themselves rely on much Japanese primary research).
 * In summary, the four listed "Further reading" items are best left as they are, not used for detailed citations. And in fact the 1925 article could be just as well removed: it is very hard to find and does not add much to what is said in the other sources. Stca74 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Close as Keep. Thanks for resolving these. My personal opinion on Further reading in FAs is that, if it can't be used in the article, it probably shouldn't be listed in an FR section, but this is an opinion so it won't bar me from endorsing a keep for this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The article needs a copyedit. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you have carried out a good number of copyedits (big thanks!) yesterday both before and after your comment here; do you consider this task now completed? If not, would be willing to carry it out to your satisfaction? Stca74 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No and no ... first, I'm not among our top copyeditors, second, I am running way behind because of a sprained wrist, and finally, I only corrected what I was able, but noticed that everywhere I looked I saw things that needed fixin. I hope a more able copyeditor than I am can get to it ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What would you propose? I can of course take another shot at copyediting myself, but given that it's mostly my own text, I'm likely to remain as blind to some issues as I have been before. Do you have in mind an active copyeditor to solicit to the task? Stca74 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to worry; someone will come along. I wonder if  or  would be interested; they both have very competent prose. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! I'd be happy to help. To the table, I can bring my currently erratic schedule and near-total ignorance of the topic! John, if you have more time, knowledge, or passion, feel free to brush me aside. I'll start coordinating with Stca74 at talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome :) Even on a Really Sucky Day, FAR can be such a nice place! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! I'll jump to continue at the talk page. Stca74 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to decline on doing a copyedit either - I'm an Ozarks hick and pretty much everything I write needs significant copyediting. Hog Farm Talk 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Work ongoing on article talk:  pls let this page know when you're ready for review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Will do! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * knocking on your door (recognize how busy you are :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Come on in! Sorry about the mess. Yes, my feet have been dragging a little. Give me another week to either push through the rest or wave my white flag (it's technically a handkerchief). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First: big thanks for the help on the article!
 * I have now rechecked your notes and questions in the articles talk page. The ones I had not addressed and/or commented already were checking for definitions of Japanese terms and italicisation; I've now gone through both, and made a few edits. I also made some minor language edits and clarifications. Unless you (or someone else) comes up with new items or new comments on my edits & comments, I have for the moment no remaining edits to make. Stca74 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This article has progressed nicely; it would be even nicer to get this wrapped up :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Just restored a (fist cn:d then removed by another account) passage with requested citations added. As far as I can see (and subject to further comments by others) both the referencing and copyediting efforts should now be complete. Stca74 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just for the sake of being explicit... Stca74 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am now fully in the throes of text-blindness when it comes to this article, but I think the copyediting work has it well-polished. Stca74 has resolved the other concerns. There's more info about the history of the palace, which makes me happy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Close w/o FARC, looks good.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.