Talk:Japanese settlement in the Marshall Islands/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
Early contact (19th century): The pearl divers were believed to be murdered, after the Ada, a British trading ship found the skeletal remains of the pearl divers. bad phrasing, please rewrite for grammar and clarity. In fact the whole paragraph is very badly written. Is the implication that the ship, the Ada sent Japanese envoys?

Japanese administration (1914–1944): A military administration was established when Japan annexed the Marshall Islands from Germany in 1914, and a few Japanese administrators were stationed on the islands. A few Japanese businessmen from the South Seas Trading Company (Nanyo Boeki) also established a few trading stations at Rongrong, Talab and Majuro village between 1915 and 1918 repetitious phrasing.

In fact reading through the whole article it is full of repetitious phrasing, bad grammar and lacks clarity or coherence. Definitely a long way from GA status. Can you enlist the help of a copy-editor to improve it?
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
I have to assume Good Faith for print references and Japanese sources.
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
What is the significance of the photograph in the infobox? How does it relate to the article subject?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article as it stands is very poorly written. If a copy editor can be found to go through it line by line to improve the prose then it may make a good article. If this can be fixed in seven days or so, then good. If not, then it will fail. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On hold status extended to 02 January 2010 at request of nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the prose has not been substantially improved, in fact there has been little activity so I am not going to list this as this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]