Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Yotsuya Kaidan/1

Yotsuya Kaidan

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: delisted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 October 2008

This article has no inline citations. The general references show that sources must exist, but without cites it is impossible to see where the info came from (and if all the claims come from the current sources.) I guess the criteria were not so strongly applied in 2006, but i don't think it merits being called a good article at the moment, is more B class.

In addition, i think it would benefit from a copyedit/restructure to remove single sentence paragraphs etc (of which there are many), and make the lead into a summary of the article. I went for community assessment though, as sources exist, so maybe someone can cite them easily.Yobmod (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. Actually, the article has a small number of in-line citations. However, it's woefully deficient in many other ways. It's arguably under-referenced, and what references and citations it has are often not properly formatted. The lead is scant. Sections and paragraphs are stubby. It's a borderline "B" article. Majoreditor (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, a reference has been added since this started :-). But still not enough. (Update: and the number of cites is still growing...).
 * It's not that hard to look up the websites in the references section and try to match them inline with information... However, I agree that it should be delisted.  My concerns are that the prose feels fragmented and too short on detail in places. For example, except for the (not-inline-cited) information about the hair-combing scene, there's no information in the article on how the play was staged - how the rotating door was achieved. -Malkinann (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist (for now). I'd like to tidy this one up however, and encourage other reviewers to do likewise. Geometry guy 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've delisted it, per all the comments above, and the fact that the main contributor to the article is pro delisting (Malkinann, who is doing good work on sourcing so far). I think it can be brought back to GA in the medium term, and adding the sources is maybe simply a case of reading all the links in the article, but it will take longer than the 2 weeks this reassessment has left, and there are still all the MOS and copyediting to do.Yobmod (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)