User talk:Freezydk/Bujutsu kodosokukai

We thank you very much for your contributions to the article. We have done our best to meet the requirements stated by you and we have now uploaded a new version which is still work in progress though. Most of the references and linking was previously to internal Wikipedia sources, most of them of high quality and trustworthy also, because we believe that this was the common idea and approach behind the Wikipedia community, and why not use the great and remarkable work of other wikipedians and share knowledge, as everybody else do. We are sorry if we have misunderstood this approach and we have now added external references and reliable sources to other countries, books and some specific issues of Hiden Magazine as well, and we will continue doing so. It is difficult to add external sources though because many of them are in Japanese and not translated into English for common people to understand, but we have added some and more will follow. We would still very much appreciate your support and if you could help us once more to revise and validate our article and guide us in the right directions concerning grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.

Thanks again,

Shindenkan WikiTeam

Deleted because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article, multiple times. Find some other admin to approve it.You seem to be attached to this article and the subject it is about, likely someone who works for the organization. Please read WP:COI, our policies on conflict of interest. Also, you have failed, again, to cite verifiable and reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your organization. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues

First, I have cleaned up formatting issues, especially related to the use of subheaders and internal wikilinks. We wikilink terms that our readers may need to review to understand an article, but only on the first use. We do not wikilink them each time they are mentioned.

One of the biggest problems I see with this article is focus. I'm afraid it wanders. It is ostensibly about "Bujutsu Kodosokukai", a school founded in 2007, but much of the article talks about Jokokan, a martial arts organization founded in 1989. If Jokokan is a notable concept, it should have its own article and not be a main focus of a subheading of that category. Too, even discussion of Jokokan is confusing to an outsider. Consider the following: we have a section on the etymology of "Jokokan" (again, which is not even the subject of this article) that diverges into a famous practitioner of the martial arts system Yashin Mon Yakami, which is (evidently) "more or less" like the Yakami-ryu system practiced by Jokokan (which is, again, not the subject of this article). We then diverge from the famous practioner of that martial arts system into the armor color & movie appearances of his father-in-law, whose connection to "Bujutsu Kodosokukai" I cannot ascertain at all. Does he have any relevance to this article other than that his son-in-law practiced a form of martial arts that is "more or less" like the one practiced by Jokokan, which is the main organization of the organization we're talking about here? It's concerning that to this point of the article the only reference we have is for a movie in which this father-in-law appears, as this seems to be completely irrelevant to the subject. The History section of this article is also completely about Jokokan, as is the section on Shindenkan & Kaidenkan. The section on Great grand masters of Yakami-ryu seems unrelated to the subject of the article. How are these people connected, specifically, to this organization that was formed in 2007?

Beyond the lack of focus on the specific subject of this article lies the second biggest problem, and the one that will probably prevent its being accepted by the Wikipedia community: I don't see anywhere a reliable source to verify that this organization — "Bujutsu Kodosokukai" — meets notability standards. Even if Jokokan meets those standards, that doesn't mean that "Bujutsu Kodosokukai" does. Where are the reliable sources that discuss this 2007 organization? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)