Talk:History of Shintō Musō-ryū
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
History of Shintō Musō-ryū was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 22, 2007 |
|
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.
Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
There is really no reason to call this "Jodo". These are simply "jo-kata" and any other added words is just unecissary. That is to day, this is SHINTO MUSO RYU JO KATA. -R Mekugi 11:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right. Should be easily fixed. Fred26 13:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Candidate
- Comment This isn't a challenge, just a question: what justifies this topic having its own article, rather than being incorporated into the history of Shinto Muso-ryu? I ask because this is really not that long of an article, so wouldn't it make more sense for the subject of Shinto Muso-ryu to be addressed comprehensively in a single article? Bradford44 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I created this sub-article 5 months ago (to the day) because I felt it was getting too big, both literary in terms of kb and its contents. I felt that there were more "History of SMR-text" than there were "SMR-Jodo"-text: that the former dominated the latter and made the whole thing into an History Article rather than a broad encyc. entry. Of course that was before I did an overhaul&addition of the main article regarding modern training and modern orgs (latter still in progress) which I think has added some much needed flesh to the article (though still more is required).
- To be short: I have no objection reinserting the "History of SMR" into the text again. Would perhaps make it easier for me to wikify and properly reference the entries like the Main Article. Fred26 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's what I would recommend (do you want to put up a "merge" tag and let people vote first?), and it would also be easier to keep the articles harmonized. Bradford44 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeh I think we should let other people give their 2 cents as well. To me it is technically no difference so its no problem either. I'll put the tags up now. Fred26 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- CommentYes, Let's reinsert this into the main SMR article. It would make it easier to co-ordinate the Kanji checking. I think the Kata of SMR article should be some sort of side bar to the main article. Ynambu 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but before we do this we must make sure we are merging for the sake of the article, not to make it easier for us editors to work. I've asked Peter Rehse to comment. Fred26 11:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the original reasoning still stands. The Top article is already quite long (42 Kb) and the inclusion of the full history article would make it much longer (duh!) but also I feel dominate the article. One huge history section amoung a series of smaller ones. I don't feel particularily strongly either way but I do think making it easier for editors to work on is not a compelling reason.Peter Rehse 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure you are right.
- For your consideration. Checking each individual Kanji and Kanji compound in each article. Then standardizing all the Kanji across the all separate articles is not as easy as working on the article in English. It's rather slow and in flipping between articles there is a chance of errors slipping in. I'm about one third the way through and I have cataloged 630 Kanji related to these articles. I am starting the Kata section his weekend.
- Well its a good thing none of use have a dead-line yes? :). Fred26 08:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment If "jodo" is a common noun like kyudo or judo (and the article is not merged), then I think it needs to be moved to "History of Shintō Musō-ryū jōdō".Bradford44 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No argument here. Fred26 08:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well I'll let you guys think it through. My point in checking and adding the Kanji is which is to be the core article from which the other articles cobweb out. Is it to be Jodo or Shinto Muso Ryu. There ae other schools of jojutsu of course. Ynambu 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- To be consistent with the main article I have moved the page to "History of Shintō Musō-ryū"Peter Rehse 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
Regrettably, I must fail this GA candidate. The main reasons are:
- There aren't nearly enough references to meet WP:CITE requirements. There should be at least one reference for each "fact" presented in the article.
- The article has multiple grammatical errors and examples of missing punctuation, such as "On a technical level, the purpose of the art defeating a swordsman in combat using the jō, with an emphasis on proper distance, timing and concentration" (the sentence is missing an "a"). It would be a good idea to have someone extensively copyedit the article before submitting it again.
- The article has a merge tag at the top. This issue must be resolved (either merge it or remove the tag) before the article can become a GA.
- In the lead, there is an inline citation to "d" that links to nothing. Fix this.
- Image:Shimizu Takaji.jpg does not have an adequate image summary, explaining where the image came from and why it's in the public domain.
- Why does the history from 1978 to the present day only explained in one sentence? Provide some more information about this period.
- Citations should come after punctuation per WP:MOS. I see several places where they are before commas and periods.
- There are several redlinks. These should either be removed or the respective articles created.
Once these issues are resolved, I invite you to come back and try for GA status again. Regards, Green451 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
