Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Toilets in Japan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toilets in Japan

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at Chris 73, Yelyos, and Japan. Sandy (Talk) 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks citations, lead needs expansion, and images need better captions. Gzkn 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I am quite fond of this article, it was promoted during a time when we had lesser standards for verifiability. I am not sure this is well-referenced enough that it would pass GA today. —ptk✰fgs 06:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has plenty of citations, just not inline citations. I'm working to change that right now. I've just saved the beginning of the conversion. It's a big article, so will take some time to do so. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes: Since I am the primary author, I am very interested in keeping the article's FA status. I greatly expanded the citations (following User:Nihonjoe's work), and expanded the lead section. I also expanded the intro section. I also did some small changes in the captions, although I thought the captions were not bad to begin with. What further improvements if any do you feel necessary? Detailed feedback would be appreciated. Many thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep on working on it. Should be possible to find a citation for every paragraph -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - citations start off OK, but then tail off. "Environmental aspects" is stubby and the two "A website...achieved some internet fame" paragraphs are horrible. It was heavily overlinked (an obsession with urinal, vulva and the TOTO company) - I've fixed a lot of this, but it could probably still do with another pass. Yomanganitalk 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the Tokyo Toilet Map to the External links -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still adding more refs, even finding good sources that I have missed when I first wrote the article. I will keep on working during the next few days as I have time -- Chris 73 | Talk
  • Request for Comment: Could I get a feedback about the current status of the article? Many more refs were added recently, citing a total of 42 sources. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a lot better. Some sections are still light on references though. Inline citations should follow punctuation per the manual of style and be in numerical order. At times it reads like a how-to-guide for foreigners: "You can also try an upscale department store..."; "Alternatively, users can seek a handicapped bathroom (if one is available)", etc. Yomanganitalk 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote placements have been fixed. Joelito (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added refs for the fact templates. For one claim I could not find refs, so i moved it to the talk page. Another claim (squat-washlet) was added by me based on discussions with the TOTO show room manager in Shinjuku L Building. he even showed me the catalog for it, but unfortunately my japanese is not good enough to find it on their webpage. I will work on some wordings next. Also, thanks to Joelito for fixing the foot note placements -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this page, which shows an adapter for converting a squat to a standard sit-down. I can't find any others, though. Do you remember the catalog number? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should add this link to the article, too. The missing citation however is a regular squat toilet, which includes a washlet like nozzle that comes out from one end (not the "dome" side but the other one). The manager said that the sales of these devices are near zero. He gave me a copy of the catalog page, but I don't have it anymore. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added information and link -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I think it's hilarious as well, but also an indication of how distinctive Wikipedia really is. You'd be hard pressed to find a better or more comprehensive article on Japanese toilets. Also, where else would I have turned to for such high quality information on those exploding whales? By the way, Chris and Nihonjoe, you guys are making great progress on those citations! Keep it up. Gzkn 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why is this already moved to FARC? The changes are still in process, would it be possible to keep this in FAR for now? The citation request seems to be fixed (plusminus a citation here and there). I am planning to update the wording on some sections a bit soon (am busy with work and have time only on a few evenings). What I don't like about the FARC is that it feels like the focus is on removing the article, not on trying to keep it a FA. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles are moved to FARC only to keep on schedule, and it doesn't mean there is any more emphasis on removing the article: if you need more time in the FARC section, and work is progressing on the article, it is granted. You're doing a great job. Sandy (Talk) 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status? This article is vastly improved: I'm adding it to the Urgent FAR template so we can get other views as to any additional work needed. Sandy (Talk) 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments & Votes? The article should by now have enough citations for a FA. The last //fact// open point is based on an interview with a showroom manager, of which I have unfortunately no written reference. If there is anything else that needs improvement, please let me know and I will see what I can do. BTW: Thanks for the positive feedback, Sandy. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it still has the "user guide" style writing I pointed out earlier, but if that can be corrected it's not far away from a keep as far as I'm concerned. Yomanganitalk 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed some wordings and removed some redundant or POV information, especially in the Public toilets section. I think it is more descriptive now and less of an user guide. Any thoughts? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vastly improved since it was nominated. Well done. I'd still like to see the one remaining uncited statement removed until it can be sourced though. Yomanganitalk 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I made a minor correction, but I see no other issues. --RelHistBuff 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a few "citation needed" tags, but those aren't enough to merit a remove vote. Well done. Gzkn 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I removed the uncited voyeurism statement to the talk page, and hope the other two uncited statements will be addressed very soon, or removed. Sandy (Talk) 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources". It seems that several of the sources used in this article are personal websites and blogs. It additionally uses a retailer's website and a newsletter as sources. I also find it strange that it uses an article from "Kids Web Japan", a website intended for children, to back up 9 claims. I realize that this is an esoteric topic but perhaps the reliable sources available should dictate the content that should be included in the article, rather than stretching to find sources for what is already written. On a side note, there seem to be some errors/redundancies and inconsistent style within the references section.
  • I also have problems specifically with the Terminology section. It arbitrarily provides footnotes for some terms but not others. But, more broadly, I'm not sure why the section exists at all. Wikipedia is not a "usage guide or slang and idiom guide", and this section seems to be just that: a usage guide for Japanese bathroom terminology. I find it difficult to imagine that a general, English-speaking audience would have any use for this information. Punctured Bicycle 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology section in this article provides relevant information about toilets in Japanese culture. Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but this is an exception. A mere usage guide wouldn't illustrate the parallels between toilet terminology and the "tagged out" place in children's games, for example. Perel 05:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Toilets_in_Japan/archive1&oldid=1138477972"