Wikipedia:Peer review/Japanese tea ceremony/archive1
Plan to nominate for FAC status, and would appreciate feedback first. The article is complete, well written and well illustrated. Exploding Boy 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree: well written and well illustrated. A couple of suggestions. First, assess the need for the Japanese. Carefully consider each, and simplify when possible. Especially, when a term is a link to an article having the Japanese for the title, Japanese tea ceremony usually should not. The article Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly has good advice: " Foreign terms within the article body do not need native text if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles." You might consider including Japanese only in the certain sections, such as the title line, Equipment, and Types of ceremony. These last two are glossaries, where the Japanese is especially appropriate. Certainly, remove things like the kanji for "wind" since the kanji is unnecessary. Second, readers encounter English, Japanese script, romaji, and literal meanings of terms. Again, evaluate whether these are all necessary. Keep them where they're important; otherwise, remove them. Third, review the captions to the photos. A couple have similar glosses, with English, Japanese, and literal meanings. Some of these are repetitive and should be taken out. Simplify captions, where possible, by removing unnecessary description. See Wikipedia:Captions#Some criteria for a good caption, especially items 1 and 2. Fourth, critically evaluate whether literal meanings are desirable. In my opinion, in most cases in this article, they are not. Finally, consider removing links to things like "cloth" (there others too). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links where the authors advise that an article is over-linked if "low added-value items are linked without reason."
- I already made additional comments on the article's discussion page.
- Fg2 02:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Few things need to be improved before FAC. 1) One reference and no inline citation is not well-referenced, I am afraid 2) see also is long, try to put as many of the links in the main body, preferably dropping the section altogether 3) the entire article, but especially the second part, seems to be very light on ilinks - try to add more to every new notable term 4) 'Kaiseki ryōri' section should probably be renamed into an English title.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)