Talk:Ikata

Ikata was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
September 4, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 9, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Japan Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:00, November 11, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

GA Review

This article looks like it's developed into a good collection of information that can be organized into an encyclopedia article. But it still needs a good deal of work on the prose and organization, and filling in the blanks, before GA status. I'd rate this article at the early B-class stage presently.

The geography and transportation sections are very brief and need to be expanded. Specifically, under geography, I would include information on climate. The transportation section just needs more than three (unsourced) sentences.

The history section seems reasonably well-written and well-sourced, and could perhaps serve as a model for other sections of the article. The current events section at the very end should probably be added to the history section, instead of being in its own section. I would also recommend promoting the history section to the first section (e.g. suggested order of sections: history, geography/climate, demographics, economy).

There is nothing in the article on the population demographics. What is the total population of the city? How does this break down into various ethnic or cultural groups?

There are also several external links contained within the article text, including one in a 'see also' link. External links should generally not be contained within the article text, instead linking to wikipedia articles only. It might help to review WP:EL for guidelines on using external links in articles.

The lead section is also too short, and doesn't really summarize the article. It might help to review WP:LEAD for tips on writing a good introduction. You might also want to review WP:CITIES for some guidelines on how to organize the information in city articles better.

Hope this helps editors improve the article! Good luck! Dr. Cash 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips! I believe I've addressed all the issues you mentioned, so I'll re-submit this for Good Article status. -Amake 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review #2

I have put the article on hold for now because of following reasons:

No references cited for the entire Festival and Events, Ethnically Ikata is extremely homogeneous with only a handful of non-Japanese residents, most of whom are either temporary farm laborers from China, or English educators on the JET Programme., and International Exchange. They should be easy to fix since it's pretty much of a obvious thing.
The article is overcrowded with photos. They are nice looking, but some of them could be unnessesary.
Points of Interest may have a little trace of original research and point of view in it, such as ..—a playground full of climbing nets, roller slides, and other exciting children's play equipment and On clear days you can see across to Kyūshū. If it could be cited, that'll be great.

That's mainly it, so it should be easy to pass a GA once they are fixed. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out.

I added some references to each of the sections mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have a source for the bit about foreign residents, aside from people I know who work for the town.
I weeded out some of the photos. Do you think it's still overcrowded?
I removed the "exciting". As for seeing across to Kyūshū, I wish I could call it original research, but when I went it was cloudy :( Being able to see Kyūshū (given good visibility) is a well-known (around here, anyway) fact of the local geography (map); I'm not sure how I should cite that.

-Amake 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good draft for a first-rate article; and I mean FA, not GA. Though it might as well pick up GA recognition on its way there.

That said, it has some flaws, of which the most glaring is sourcing from Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source: as we know all too well and as is pointed out in some guideline or policy that I can't be bothered to look up right now. -- Hoary 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, please make comments here in the talk page, not with HTML comments in the article. It's very hard to have a discussion with HTML comments. To address one that I accidentally wiped out with my last edit: 「伊方町誌」 is correct; 誌 is also pronounced shi, and in this case is a somewhat archaic usage to mean "record" or "history". The book is a history of the town of Old Ikata. -Amake 01:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to replace all but one of the Wikipedia Japan sources; the last one will be difficult to find. -Amake 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problems has been cleared, so I will pass the GA nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohisat (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Amake 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much improved since I looked at it first, but I would still say it's still just barely borderline B/GA class. First of all, the article should NEVER have passed with the 'citation needed' tag in the 'transportation' section -- that needs to be fixed immediately. I would also rm the 'sightseeing' from 'transportation and sightseeing' section, as it makes the article look more like a tourist brochure and not an encyclopedia article. 'Points of interest' and 'roadside stations' should probably be moved to the 'culture' section, since these are mainly cultural attractions - the transportation section should cover the transportation infrastructure, not sightseeing information.

Points of interest' and 'roadside stations' should also be converted more to prose format, rather then the bulleted lists that they are. The 'Festivals and events' section is also a little bit too listy, and the bold subsections for the months is not really necessary -- this section should ideally be written out as prose, not listing.

The 'folklore' section is largely just two quotes; it should be expanded - I would also recommend eliminating use of the quote template; it makes the section look like just a collection of quotes, rather than an actual article. Usage of such templates sort of says that the author(s) is/are too lazy to actually write and/or paraphrase something on our one, so we're just going to steal what this other guy said. Of course, nonetheless, there is still a time and place to use such quotes, but I don't think this is it.

The 'industry' section contains only one source -- all other information is unsourced. Consider changing the name of this section to 'economy', and possibly moving it early in the article, at least before 'transportation'.

Add information on the government structure to the politics section, and change the name of the section to 'government' or 'government and politics'.

I'm not going to boldly delist this article right now, but it does run the risk of being listed at WP:GA/R, especially with citation issues. I personally would have placed this on hold on 9/3/2007, rather than passing, though. Dr. Cash 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be overwhelmingly the work of a single editor, Amake. I haven't made a single substantive addition to it; however, I did once put half an hour or so into slightly improving (degrading?) it and I respond with that experience in mind.

Some of your comments seem very fair. However:

the article should NEVER have passed with the 'citation needed' tag in the 'transportation' section -- that needs to be fixed immediately. I put that tag there. It was one of several that I added for the same reason, and Amake fixed all but one very quickly indeed. As for this remaining one, he could easily have removed the offending sentence. You're free to criticize this, but please don't aggrandize it to "citation issues", plural.

I would also rm the 'sightseeing' from 'transportation and sightseeing' section, as it makes the article look more like a tourist brochure and not an encyclopedia article. 'Points of interest' and 'roadside stations' should probably be moved to the 'culture' section, since these are mainly cultural attractions - the transportation section should cover the transportation infrastructure, not sightseeing information. I don't know this peninsula and have only once been to Ehime. However, I infer that transportation and sightseeing are intertwined. A total of seven "points of interest" and "roadside stations" are described; the descriptions may or may not appeal to you; some do sound attractive to me but I'd be hard pressed to call any but Ikata Kirara-kan "cultural".

That's not to say that the bulleting should stay, or that other improvements and abridgements couldn't be made. The write-up of "Seto Agriculture Park" seems particularly touristleafletty. -- Hoary 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ikata town logo.svg

Image:Ikata town logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ikata, Ehime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ikata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

Ikata

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so bad it's actually embarrassing. Most of the article is an unsourced mess that I doubt can even be fixed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Ugh, this one just hurts to read. There are so few sources it would be easier to list what is sourced. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Agree that it is not at GA quality at this time. Gusfriend (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.