Talk:Sogen Kato

Year of death

It is specified, "Death in 1978" because the date in the newspaper in the room is 1978 according to Asahi Shimbun. "Sogen Kato"Asahi Shimbun--Ronald S Kodera (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of existence before a few days ago?

Just being sceptical here of a possible "Onion"-like hoax. Is there any evidence of Sogen Kato's existence earlier than news stories of the past few days (July 2010)? Especially since he isn't on Wikipedia's list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_supercentenarians 174.0.234.105 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's list won't necessarily be complete. For this to be a hoax of a hoax, the Tokyo officials would have to be involved. Possible, but I don't think us speculating about it will help. Fences&Windows 12:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

still, I'd like to see some evidence of the person's existence BEFORE this story broke 174.0.234.105 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sogen Kato/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arctic Night 17:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'll be taking this review. I will provide some comments and then an adjudication at the end. Arctic Night 17:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• I know it sounds a little nit-picky, but who are the 'officials' mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead? If this information is available, I think it would be a good idea if it is included in the article.
  • I don't believe it is known. wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

History

• "a process in which Buddhists eat a special diet consisting only of nuts and seeds for 1,000 days—just under three years—while taking part in a regime of rigorous physical activity that stripped them of their body fat. They then ate only bark and roots for another thousand days and began drinking a poisonous tea made from the sap of the Urushi tree, normally used to lacquer bowls." - the first sentence is in the present tense, while the second part is in the past tense. This should be fixed for consistency.
  • Done wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• "a 2½ year suspended sentence for four years" - not entirely sure what this means. Is that a 1.5 year custodial sentence followed by a 2.5 year suspended sentence for a total of four years? I think this needs to be clarified.
  • It means a 2½ year sentence, suspended for four years, in that she will serve the 2½ years if she commits another crime in the next four years. Clarified in the article. wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "...they didn’t feel they could return home," - the reference needs to be directly after the quote, not further on from it.
  • Er, but then the fact it was printed in a "Canadian newspaper reported several months after the discovery of Kato's body" is unreferenced? wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that means that both would need to be referenced - sorry, I mean directly after the quote and later on :) Arctic Night 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • Ah, I see! Done :-) wackywace 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• The same goes for this: "...a rotting corpse and maggots,"
  • Moved. wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• One Japanese doctor, however, said he was not surprised at the news.[15] Dr. Miyoji Aiba, of the Tokyo Koto Geriatric Medical Centre, said many Japanese seniors were dying alone, ignored by their families. “Some patients come in with their families, but many are alone or come in just with their social workers,” he said. “It happens especially in Tokyo. There are more and more single-person families.”[15] - In my opinion, this is over-referencing. We don't need to reference the same statement twice - just once will suffice.
  • Done wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Please make the family name/first name convention consistent throughout the article. For example, Miyoji Aiba is spelled with the family name first, but Sogen Kato with the family name second. Please fix this for consistency.
  • Done wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is very good, and I think that with just a little bit more work, I will be able to give it Good Article status. Therefore, I am putting this article on hold for seven days. If I do not see a significant improvement after the seven day deadline, I will be faced with no choice but to fail this article. Arctic Night 17:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review, I appreciate it! wackywace 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi - just the reference issue needs to be fixed up then we're all done! Arctic Night 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: