Talk:Yoshio Sakamoto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

A Wikipedian removed Yoshio Sakamoto from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This is as good as any other biography page - it doesn't deserve to be "good". Nippoo 22:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is still in the list as far as I can tell, so I've restored the tag. Now, could you please care to elaborate on why this good article isn't "good"? The purpose of GA is not to identify articles that are better than others -- just to identify good ones. Fredrik | tc 18:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is far from better than others. Take a look at Leon Trotsky and Hugo Chavez and Bobby Fischer and Smedley Butler and Adolf Hitler and so on and you'll immediately come to the conclusion that this article is far from good. The problems are numerous:

• Weak lead; too short.
• Not thorough; doesn't even have birth date.
• No sections
• Not well-written.
• No citation for quote.

This article needs much more work then just some 6 edits, of which only some 3 are actually useful. AndyZ 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1-3 are invalid. Length is not a requirement for GA. Articles should be long enough to deal with all major aspects of the topic, which I feel this one does (where did you get the idea that there would be as much to write about this guy that there is on Trotsky?). The lack of a birthdate is a problem, but not a major one; it's not a particularly interesting fact and the birthdate of many people isn't readily available information. Sections, of course, shouldn't be present since the article is short (there's hardly anything uglier than a three-paragraph article with three section headings). The quote is from one of the given references.

Also, number of edits is hardly a good criterion. Some of our best articles were written offline by one editor, and have essentially only deteriorated or remained in the same state since they were published. Fredrik | tc 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)