Wikipedia:Peer review/Yasukuni Shrine/archive1

Yasukuni Shrine[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently GREATLY overhauled the article by referencing it, creating new sections and even breaking out other sections. I would love to get this to a GA sometime in the near future.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

This looks pretty good and seems close to GA. Biggest problem is refs - it still needs some refs in some sections, for example the whole Eligible categories section has no refs, and the non-table prose in Kami by conflict also has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Not all refs have the required information, for example current refs 1 and 2 do not list the publisher. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
There are a large number of External links, probably too many by WP:EL. Some of these could be used a refs, especially since so many of the current refs are from the shrine itself. The article needs more independent, third-party refs, but the ELs, Further reading and last three uncited refs look like they would be good to add as refs (mostly).
Article uses too many bullet point lists - some should be converted to prose. The use of image galleries is also discouraged - {{commonscat}} works well

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]