Wikipedia:Peer review/Yasukuni Shrine/archive1

Yasukuni Shrine

 * 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 July 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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently GREATLY overhauled the article by referencing it, creating new sections and even breaking out other sections. I would love to get this to a GA sometime in the near future.

Thanks, --TorsodogTalk 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty good and seems close to GA. Biggest problem is refs - it still needs some refs in some sections, for example the whole Eligible categories section has no refs, and the non-table prose in Kami by conflict also has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Not all refs have the required information, for example current refs 1 and 2 do not list the publisher. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * There are a large number of External links, probably too many by WP:EL. Some of these could be used a refs, especially since so many of the current refs are from the shrine itself. The article needs more independent, third-party refs, but the ELs, Further reading and last three uncited refs look like they would be good to add as refs (mostly).
 * Article uses too many bullet point lists - some should be converted to prose. The use of image galleries is also discouraged - commonscat works well