Wikipedia:Peer review/Japanese alias/archive1

Japanese alias

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I was in the process of severely editing this article, and made that clear on the Discussion page, when someone came in and tossed out a lot of the baby with the bath water. Understandably they may not have seen the Discussion page. In any case, please review this so I know how much, if any, is inappropriate, and I can make the appropriate edits before someone tosses out a lot of the good stuff again.

Thanks, Mak Allen (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: May I first point out that if you think the material that was "tossed out" is valid, and can be verified, you are entitled to restore it, as indeed you can with any removed stuff. I realise that this review may not help you much, but basically I am saying:(1) if you want to restore useful verifiable material, do so, (2) try to get more clarity into your prose so that it easier to follow, and (3) increase the number of in-text citations, using sources capable of being verified by English language speakers.
 * My main problem with the article is that I could barely understand a word of it. I was quite unable to follow the Registration method section, and got similarly lost with the In practice section. I couldn't understand, either, why you brought Koreans and Chinese into the discussion, in the Typical Uses section.
 * You only have one in-text citation, and that to a Japanese language source. The vast majority of Eng-lang Wikipedia readers won't understand this source and will have no way of assessing its reliability. Please see WP:Verifiability.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)