Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: others)/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:12, 30 April 2011.

List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: others)

 * Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A list of 99 National Treasures including sutras, poetry and letters with the oldest items from the 6th century. It is modelled after other featured list in the series of Lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Small thing, but unless this is the super official name of the sub-group by the government, I would probably suggest a move (along with the Books list). Why not just List of National Treasures of Japan (writings) (or List of National Treasures of Japan (other writings)) and List of National Treasures of Japan (books)? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some explanation concerning the list's title. The designating body (Agency for Cultural Affairs) only distinguishes the category: "writings" (書跡・典籍, shoseki, tenseki), which includes all treasures from "writings: others" and "writings: books", i.e. 223 treasures. Since there are too many entries in this "writings" category, I decided after some thought to split the list in two. Because of their origin I would like to keep the official category name ("writings") in the list's title. This is exactly the same situation as with the official category "crafts" which for purpose of presentation on wikipedia is split in two (FL): "crafts: swords" and "crafts: others". Also please see the discussions here and here. So unless you feel strongly about the name, I'd stay with the current situation. bamse (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, that explanation makes perfect sense. Writings is the official name, but writings alone is too long so you subdivided it. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Meets FL standards. Courcelles 10:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with a comment and disclaimer. In some of the table cells the text ends in a full stop, but not in others. I think that should be made consistent. As with the other articles in this series, I've helped with copyediting, but that's full extent of my involvement. I think it fully meets the FL standards. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed ca. 5 full stops. Please let me know if there are any left. Also fixed some comma/full stop inconsistencies in the tables' format columns. bamse (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Comment: The research here is obviously comprehensive (I will leave to others more experienced in the field to judge accuracy), but the prose (mostly between tables) could use some work. For example: there is a typo ("writtings") in the map caption up top. Many sentences are vague and wordy: "... was one of the factors leading to the need for and increasing importance of writing". (If there is a difference between a growing need and increased importance, it can't be too significant.) In my quick read, I found several run-on sentences, including this one: "Generally the 9th century was a time in which Chinese learning thrived in Japan and authors produced a wide variety of works in Chinese language including commentaries and treatises on a variety of subjects."


 * I won't oppose on this criteria, but I would be happy to support if the prose were improved here. Scartol  •  Tok  21:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed the "need for writing" part from the above sentence and added a note (The other factor was the establishment of a bureaucratic Chinese-style government in Japan around the same time) to explain "one of the factors". User:Truthkeeper88 promised to have another run through to fix prose issues. bamse (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper88 and me had another look at the prose, fixing vagueness and wordinesss. Hope you like it better now. bamse (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better. There is still room for improvement ("from the 11th century onward" should just be "starting in the 11th century"), but I feel that the prose is now generally of high quality. Well done. Scartol  •  Tok  22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed that sentence accordingly. bamse (talk) 22:53, 28 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.