Wikipedia:Featured article review/Japan/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 Raul654 05:20, 14 April 2011.

Japan

 * Notified: John Smith's, WoodElf, TakuyaMurata, HongQiGong, WP Japan, WP East Asia, WP Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article needs quite a bit of work to remain at featured status. Here are some of the first things I saw on a sweep of the article:


 * Extreme sandwiching of text between images and between images and infoboxes. A major cull of images is needed, as is a review of all image licensing.
 * Galleries are discouraged in featured articles, and I don’t think that the one in the culture and recreation section really adds enough to the reader’s understanding to really be needed.
 * Short paragraph scattered throughout the article break flow. Try combining or expanding these.
 * Quite a few little places that need references. For example, the two paragraphs about territorial disputes in the Foreign relations and military section. This is just an example, there are other places.
 * Several fact tags that need to be taken care of.
 * All uses of "%" should be spelled out – i.e., use "percent" instead.
 * As far as I can see, "%" only appears in the infobox which is fine according to Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers). bamse (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that despite the descriptions in WP:MOSNUM, major articles about countries use "%" instead of "percent". See United States, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada or more. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles above aren't even at B-class, and GA-class doesn't require compliance with the entire MOS. So, they're not really the greatest ones to compare to... Besides, FA articles must comply with MOS (per the criteria) so the FA articles mentioned above should be changed, unless you can get consensus to have the MOS changed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three dead links and three dab links.
 * There is one dab link (to Demographics of Tibet) left which is included through Template:Asia topic. The template is permanently protected, so I asked at the template's talk page to fix this link. bamse (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose needs a run-through, as there are quite a few little errors that need to be fixed. For example, in the history section, "The smallpox epidemic of 735–737 is believed to had killed as many as one-third of Japan's population." should be "…killed as much as…", not "as many as".
 * Simple grammar question: "is believed to had killed" sounds wrong to my ears but I cannot think of a grammatical reason to fault it and while "is believed to have killed" to me sounds better, having have which is usually plural paired with the singular epidemic does seem to be inconsistent. I checked the phrases on Google, however, and the version with have is overwhelmingly used more.  So what gives?  What's the proper form and why?  Only explanation I can come up with is that subject-verb agreement is fulfilled by "is believed" and "to have" is the proper infinitive form but then there is the following "killed" that seems to kill that explanation. Lambanog (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lambanog, you are quite right. I went for the lesser grammar mistake in that sentence and completely missed the most obvious one. But this just further points out the issues with the prose. Dana boomer (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are probably other issues, but, as I said, this was what I saw in a first sweep. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullet point lists, such as the one in the Climate section, are discouraged by MOS when the information could be easily presented as prose.


 * I agree that this article still needs a lot work. ja:日本 is much longer. I would like to see:
 * * Summary of Foreign_relations_of_Japan
 * * Alternative energy, IT, life science, metrology, nanotechnology, material science, etc.
 * * Marine transport, shipbuilding, ports, deep sea exploration, and untapped seabed resources --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be room for expansion and addition, but you also need to be careful that the article doesn't get too long. It's already at 115 kb and 6800 words, which is well into the maximum size recommended by WP:SIZE. Extra information being added should be balanced by other sections more effectively using WP:Summary style. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is material probably better added to specific articles. A few lines could be inserted in total, but as Dana suggests it might better to trim some other text in order to fit any additions in.
 * By the way, I think that a lot of changes have been made and the review is coming along well. I am going to have a look for anything that needs a citation. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to update the image captions to follow the image MOS - i.e. fullstops only for full sentences. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this has an editorial reason, but shouldn't the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M%C5%8Dko_Sh%C5%ABrai_Ekotoba_2.jpg be more in the middle of the history section as second image? In my browser it is at the top of the section near the praehistoric history - where it doesn't fit to the chronological order of the text. GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's just down to the minimum realistic size of images and the fact that there's more than one in the section. If images were to sit exactly where they were referred to, articles would often look awful as the pictures would be clumped up and distort text. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

More comments - I was asked on my talk page to return to my comments, so here are some more thoughts: A significant amount of work has obviously been put into this article since the beginning of this FAR, and for that I thank and congradulate the editors working on it. However, a bit more polishing is needed before this article is really back to FA quality. Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still text sandwiched between images in the Politics, Infrastructure and Sports sections. I've also asked an image expert to look over all of the licensing, so he will hopefully be stopping by soon.
 * Still the gallery in the Sports section, see comment above.
 * Still many references inconsistently formatted/missing information. I'm seeing bare links, missing publishers, missing access dates, some repeated refs that use the named ref feature and others that don't, and quite a few middling-quality refs when the FA requirement is for high-quality sources and a thorough review of the available literature (including books, peer reviewed journal article, etc).
 * Still quite a few short, choppy paragraphs and sections.
 * Still one dead link (see here), and the dab link to Demographics of Tibet - perhaps ping wherever you placed the request?
 * A mix of British and American spelling (both neighbor and neighbour, for instance). Please make a sweep through the entire article.
 * Another sweep of the prose should be done for clarity and purposeful writing. While there are fewer grammatical errors, there are still quite a few places that are unclear. For instance, from the 20th century section:
 * "In 1935, local assemblies were established in Taiwan." What are local assemblies? Does this mean that Japan invaded Taiwan and set up a government?
 * "The Allied powers repatriated millions of ethnic Japanese from colonies throughout Asia." What does this mean? That ethnic Japanese were removed from colonies in East Asia outside of Japan and forced to return to Japan? Also, which Allied powers, Japan and its allies or the United States/Britain/etc, which are typically referred to as the Allied Powers?
 * "all members of the bacteriological research units and members of the imperial family" This seems like a weird combination of people...scientists and royals. I know this is a summary article, but some hint needs to be given to the reader of why these scientists even had the possibility of being prosecuted.

Comment - Number of islands in lead with "Japan is an archipelago of 6,852 islands." differs from the geography section of the article itself stating "Japan has over three thousand islands" (ca. 3,400?). I guess this could be a problem, how you count islands and which size still constitutes an "island", but the number should be consistent throughout the article. Maybe add a small comment, how the number (either one) is calculated, if there is such a large possible difference. GermanJoe (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe, that was a good one to spot. It was easily rectified, as the 6,852 figure is the official Japanese figure (see the link in the lead). I've decided to go with that one and replace the 3,000+ number. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Image concerns: The above should be addressed to show the best work of Wikipedia (using the best available verifiable sources and images compliant with policies and guidelines). Side note: Japan has freedom of panorama for outdoor architecture, File:Tokyo stock exchange.jpg could be construed as a copyright violation of the internal architecture. It is my view that the LED panels and seating/office arrangement are temporary structures, and are not "architecture", which I believe are permanent structures. As such, I do not think the image is a copyright violation. Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Regions and Prefectures of Japan.svg: The base map, File:Region system8.png, is "Created by myself using Inkscape and existing prefectural maps on Wikipedia." So which "existing prefectural maps"?
 * File:Japan (orthographic projection).svg: Per commons:Commons:Image casebook, from what data set or public domain sources was this generated from?
 * File:Sumo tournament.jpg: The image does not carry any assertion of its relationship to the uploader. Who created (and holds the copyright of) this photograph (a template does not serve this purpose)?  Replaced by File:Sumo.jpg, which is okay.  Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Tokugawa 1.jpg, File:Ch5 wakamurasaki.jpg, and File:Mōko Shūrai Ekotoba 2.jpg: These fail WP:CITE. Even if these are images of public domain work, information is necessary to verify their nature (scan or photograph&mdash;done by others or taken by oneself) and origin (original, copy, or later reproduction).  Replaced by File:Genjosanzo.jpg and File:Brooklyn Museum - Scene from the Tale of Genji - overall.jpg, which are okay.  Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair I think that those images you refer to should be put through the usual deletion/query process for files on Wikipedia. If there's an obvious violation of copyright I can see the need to remove an image. Otherwise I think they should be put up for deletion/review. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Featured articles are supposed to be the best examples of the project's policies and guidelines, and the rules evolve. An image may not necessarily be a copy violation or require deletion because it does not comply with certain policies or guidelines.  However, their flaws/non-compliance mean they are not the "best examples that the project can provide", which FAs require.  Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problematic non-maps have all been replaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefecture map has been removed, infobox map has been replaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments and Suggestions - i really enjoyed reading that article and found it mostly well-written and informative. However i have two general concerns and a long list of minor tweak suggestions. General Concerns - Linking throughout the article is a bit loose, several general common terms are linked. On the other hand whole phrases are linked to only partially relevant sub-articles. I have added a few examples in my suggestions, but would encourage a main editor to strengthen the link quality over the whole article. As second point the article focus seems to be be a bit broad and too detailed, especially for the longer sections like history or economy, chances for trimming should be checked again.Suggestions for tweaks following: Like i said, a very good article, but due to it's sheer size even a minor tweaking results in a massive list of points. GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead "Since adopting its constitution in 1947" ==> maybe "Since adopting an entirely revised constitution in 1947", the actual version sounds, like Japan didn't have a constitution before.
 * "It has the highest life expectancy of any country (according to UN and WHO estimates) and the third lowest infant mortality rate." ==> Avoid brackets with "According to UN and WHO estimates it has ..."?
 * Prehistory "the Nara period is characterized by the appearance of a nascent [written] literature" ==> redundant for literature.
 * Feudal era "The Tokugawa shogunate enacted measures like Buke shohatto to control the autonomous daimyo." ==> The actual phrasing forces the reader to click the Buke-link to understand the whole context. Add a small descriptive phrase like "...Buke shohatto as code of conduct to control ...".
 * 20th century After "In 1936, Japan signed the ..." four consecutive sentences start with "In {year}, Japan". Try rewording the 2nd and 4th sentence. Also 3rd and 4th sentence use "invaded", switch second occurance to "occupied" or something similar.
 * "After the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender on August 15 (Victory over Japan Day)." ==> I am bit sceptical about using the (probably loaded) allied term "Victory over Japan Day" in an article about Japan under NPOV considerations. As mentioning all names for this day of both sides for neutrality would go a bit too far, i suggest to remove the allied term.
 * "The Allied occupation", "a major recession" ==> Unlink "the", "a" and check for similar link phrases.
 * "Japan later achieved spectacular growth.." ==> I agree, it was spectacular. But consider using a little more neutral term within the article ("rapid", "enormous", ...?).
 * "This ended in the mid-1990s when Japan suffered a major recession. Positive growth in the early 21st century has signaled a gradual recovery." ==> Two short sentences, which could probably be combined with a ",but".
 * Geography "The 1923 Tokyo earthquake killed over 140,000 people. The most recent major quakes are the 2004 Chūetsu earthquake and the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake." ==> Combine sentences and sort earthquakes by ascending date in order of events.
 * Disagree with combining sentences, as the first sentence refers to a historically significant earthquake resulting in major loss of life, whereas the second sentence offers examples of important recent earthquakes - the two are separate points. Chrono order is neither here nor there - I don't see a compelling rationale for either order in the context of the second sentence, so if you want to change it to 1995 then 2004 you can. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate "The Central Highland is a typical inland climate,..." ==> "... has a typical inland climate". Don't switch between different meanings of "climate", it is already used as a feature of a region.
 * "and the stationary rain front gradually works its way north" ==> "...gradually moves...", a rain front is no bulldozer :).
 * "In late summer and early autumn, typhoons often bring heavy rain." ==> Link typhoon.
 * Biodiversity a very short paragraph, either merge with "Climate" or add a bit more about typical Japanese fauna and flora?
 * Enviroment As a central issue for Japan it's probably worth including here at length, but does it really need 3 whole paragraphs? Is it possible to trim it down to 2, avoiding side details?
 * Economy merge first 2 paragraphs (both deal with historic aspects and the first is a bit small).
 * "Japan's exports amounted to $US4,210 per capita in 2005." ==> typo, US$. "$US4,210 per capita" shouldn't be linked (see WP:easter egg).
 * Is it possible to trim the section a bit? The whole economy chapter reads like a massive wall of text and statistics, overwhelming the reader. I am not convinced, all those details are really needed in the main country article.
 * Science and Technology No need to link "scientific research" and "research and development" as common phrases.
 * Disagree, as "research and development" has a specific meaning that may not be apparent to casual readers, and provides context for those interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Infrastructure "Japan's road spending has been extensive. Its 1.2 million kilometers of paved road are the main means of transportation." ==> Two directly related sentences, combine with comma. Check "its 1.2 million" - it's?
 * Comma would be inappropriate here - they're not that directly related, although a semicolon might be workable. "Its" is correct - Japan's roads, not "It is" roads. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The largest ports include Nagoya Port." ==> a bit short, can you add a bit more on the role of ports and sea connections for Japan?
 * Demographics "Japan suffers from a high suicide rate. In 2009, the number of suicides exceeded 30,000 for the twelfth straight year. Suicide is the leading cause of death for people under 30." ==> Combine related short sentences with comma (or semicolon for the 2nd and 3rd sentence).
 * Again, comma would be inappropriate. I would prefer to keep these sentences intact, but a semicolon may be workable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Religion "Taoism and Confucianism from China have also influenced Japanese beliefs and customs." ==> How? Is it possible to add 1-2 very brief examples?
 * This section is deliberately short - Religion in Japan is available for a more in-depth view. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Language "Besides Japanese, the Ryukyuan languages, also part of the Japonic language family, are spoken in Okinawa; however, few children learn these languages." ==> Change semicolon to comma, as those sentences are not distinct enough.
 * Again disagree about appropriateness of comma here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, GermanJoe. I've fixed all of them unless otherwise noted above. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * List updated. As the remaining points are probably a matter of taste (or my poor grammar), no problem with keeping the text as is. I will try and do another readthrough soon, when i find some more time. GermanJoe (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments - round 2 after another readthrough.
 * Prehistory "In 784, Emperor Kammu moved the capital from Nara to Nagaoka-kyō for a ten-year period before relocating it to Heian-kyō (modern Kyoto) in 794." ==> remove "for a ten-year period". Start and end already given.
 * Feudal era "Japan's feudal era was characterized by the emergence of a ruling class of warriors, the samurai." ==> Can a whole era be characterized by the emergence of something? Consider rephrasing "The beginning of Japan's feudal era ...". Also, when the samurai were so important, one sentence in the whole section seems a bit short and vague - why were they so important or what was their role in Japan's society?
 * Actually, there is more than a sentence - it just wasn't clear enough. Now rephrased


 * "Zen Buddhism was introduced from China(?) in the Kamakura period (1185–1333)" ==> with no deeper knowledge of the different kinds of Buddhism, this seems to contradict section "Prehistory". There the article states, Buddhism was introduced from Korea(?) (a different kind of Buddhism?). Please clarify in Prehistory or here.
 * "During the 16th century, traders and Jesuit missionaries ....between Japan and the West" ==> "the West" seems a bit vague and Japan-centric. Why not name the countries in question?
 * Actually prefer this wording, despite its vagueness, as it more accurately reflects the dominant view presented in RS


 * Geography "Japan was originally attached ... around 15 million years ago." ==> Put the plate related info directly behind other plate facts after "...Okhotsk Plate to the north. " to keep the topic together in one place.
 * Climate "... foehn wind phenomenon." ==> Just "foehn wind" is clear enough.
 * "The highest temperature ever measured in Japan—40.9 °C (105.6 °F)—was recorded on August 16, 2007." ==> A fun tidbit, but information on average temperature values would be far more useful within an encyclopedia.
 * Environment "As a signatory ... obligations.[62]" ==> Please check link 62, the article behind it seems to be removed. Consider trimming the whole 2 sentences, there are only a few notable facts in them anyway (a lot of countries are obliged to reduce their emissions and their governments are "promising" improvements, that's hardly unique for Japan). Maybe reduce it to mention only the Kyoto conference briefly.
 * Politics "The Diet consists of a House of Representatives with 480 seats, elected by popular vote every four years or when dissolved, and a House of Councillors of 242 seats, whose popularly-elected members serve six-year terms" ==> So both Houses are popularly elected? What's their main distinctive difference?
 * The length of the terms and the number of seats, as described in this sentence


 * Foreign Relations / Military Both sentences about UN security council seating in "Military" should be part of "Foreign Relations".
 * "Military" could be filled up with the RIMPAC-statement from "Foreign Relations" or with some basic statistical data (number of personnel for each military branch for example).
 * Please reread both sections and separate the content clearly between international politics and military stuff (where possible).
 * Infrastructure "As of 2008, ...of Japan's electricity.[120]" ==> Link "nuclear power" one sentence earlier, also link "hydro power".
 * Demographics "The Japanese population is rapidly aging as a result of a post–World War II baby boom followed by a decrease in birth rates." ==> Maybe grammatically correct, but reads awkward - the aging is the direct result of decreasing birth rates after the initial post-world war II baby boom. Consider rephrasing with the earlier cause first.
 * Not sure what you mean here - could you clarify?
 * No worries, i guess the structure is clear for a native-English speaker.GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Many younger Japanese are increasingly preferring not to marry or have families." ==> "increasingly preferring"?, rephrase "A growing number of young Japanese prefers not to marry or have families."?
 * 1 dab-link in cities-table with second "Shizuoka".
 * Religion link "syncretic". (GermanJoe (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Already linked earlier in the section
 * All done except where otherwise indicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All relevant tweak suggestions done by Nikkimania, a nice improvement altogether. I see no glaring issues left actually. GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Further comments This is looking quite close to a keep without FARC (I won't be the one closing, obviously, since I initiated the review, but that's my opinion). A few more comments, however:
 * Foreign language refs (such as #1, 39) should have the language specified.
 * Why are we using two different editions of Totman's A History of Japan as sources?
 * I can only guess that some editors have been using one edition, whilst another edition was used by someone else. I can't verify all the references with my edition (2000), so I think it's better to leave as it is.


 * A lot of the references use acronyms (JNTO, OECD, etc) that won't be obvious to many readers.
 * Feudal era, "who was soon himself defeated". Sounds odd; perhaps "who was himself soon defeated..."?
 * Done.


 * Feudal era, "like Buke shohatto". Should this be "buke" with a lowercase "b"? That is how it is used in sentences in its own article.
 * Done.


 * 20th century, "The Allies (led by the US) repatriated millions of ethnic Japanese from colonies and military camps throughout Asia." Why?
 * Because the war was over and the empire was eliminated. Attempted to clarify. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Geography, "About 70 to 80 percent of Japan..." 10% is a large difference - do sources not agree?
 * Climate, "the stationary rain front gradually moves" Doesn't stationary mean it doesn't move?
 * Removed "stationary".


 * Economy, "As of 2001, Japan's shrinking labor force consisted of some 67 million workers." This statistic is 10 years old; can we find something more recent?
 * Done.


 * Science and technology - The discussion of the Kaguya program is almost four years old. Is the probe still up there? Has it done anything interesting?
 * Done.


 * Demographics - Are there any theories for the reason behind the high suicide rate?
 * Plenty of theories but no hard evidence as to any single reason. It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure we could do it justice here. Though if someone has a good article covering all the viewpoints I guess we could add that in.


 * Music, "A 1993 survey by the Cultural Affairs Agency...". Any updates in the page 18 years?
 * Not that I've been able to find, but I'll keep looking. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Literature, "the chōnin, the ordinary people," Perhaps "the chonin, or ordinary people"?
 * Clarified.

Overall, looks nice. A bit more work on comprehensiveness and prose and it should be good to go. Thank you to everyone for their great work on this article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Am too tired to do anymore, would appreciate it if someone else could take the rest forward. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All done except where otherwise indicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Is there a reason to use the CIA map for Japan. It seems strange to highlight ASEAN+3 in a map of Japan. Surely an orthographic projection map which doesn't shove Japan to a corner but places it in the centre would be much better? If there's a problem with the sourcing here, then every country using these maps will have an issue. If this can't be used, can another one be made from a current PD map that does not highlight ASEAN+3 and has Japan much more centred? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edited the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Calling everything up to the Heian period "Prehistory" is very unusual as far as I am aware of. Maybe the section name could be changed to "Prehistory to Classical Japan" or "Prehistory, Ancient and Classical Japan" or to something else. bamse (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, for variety maybe the first image (in prehistory section) could be replaced with something older (e.g. Jōmon Pottery, dogū, haniwa). The present picture is a bit too similar in style (scroll) and content (horses) to the second (Mongol invasion) image. bamse (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep without FARC - At this point, I believe enough work has been done on this article to warrant it being kept without a FARC. I would suggest pinging other editors who have made comments to see if they share my opinion or have further comments. I will leave a note for Raul, letting him know that this will be his to close, since I have been rather intimately involved :) Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I tend to agree with Dana, there's been a lot of work done here - and a lot of improvement. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some sections (History, Economy, Politics, Demographics) still "feel" a bit too detailed, but this isn't enough to demote it in my opinion. The article has seen many significant improvements in structure and content. GermanJoe (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although I agree with GermanJoe that some parts such as History are slightly too detailed (subsections that don't even have main links), the pictures could be rearranged into a much nicer format, and one or two tiny paragraphs, the article is referenced throughout and well-written, and I feel that the tiny problems in the article are inconsequential and the article should remain a FA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.