Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aikido/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Aikido
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Aikido edit

There has been a long, slow, measured process to get this article prepared for featured article. It was nominated and accepted for GA and underwent a further peer review. I feel that this article even then was ready for featured article status but suggestions were made and incorporated.Peter Rehse 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is "aikido" a proper noun? This article treats it as a common noun, but other articles use capitalization randomly. Should it be capitalized? --- RockMFR 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the form followed by the press is to treat aikido as a 'common noun' whereas Daito-ryu is considered a 'proper noun' for the name of a particular style of jujutsu. Therefore aikido, jujutsu and judo are non-capitalized while Yoshinkan, Yagyu Shinkan-ryu and Kodokan will take capitalization. Of course, titles make all things equal. :) --Mateo2006 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite a bit of discussion regarding the naming of the more common martial arts such as judo, karate and aikido (especially those that have become loan words) vs more obscure arts. The consensus was how it appears in the article and generally is so in aikido related articles. Some claim to an aikido connection is quite common so I have not seen all instances but where they are found its usually changed. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts#CapitalizationPeter Rehse 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong effort was made to have the aikido article follow both Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).Peter Rehse 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article has matured to a state where even those without knowledge or experience of aikido could come away from the article feeling they have an understanding of the art and what it consists of. It handles the tricky business of explaining the physical techniques of the art with line drawings in an unique way capturing an element that has eluded many fairly good articles on the martial arts. I support the idea that "Aikido" should be given 'feature article' status.--Mateo2006 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment needs more refs and is rather listy.Rlevse 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Too many sections entirely lacking citations. Prose could use some brushing up. I don't think the lists are an issue, necessarily -- lists seem like a valid way of cataloguing important techniques -- but I do think they should be supported by more prose, not simply "Some common techniques and their Aikikai terminology:". It's a pretty impressive article, but it's not quite there yet. Shimeru 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have you list a few more examples of where prose needs improvement? Merely stating the subsection heading would be sufficient. Thank you, Bradford44 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It's really not concentrated in any one section, as far as I can see, but I'll list some examples that read awkwardly to me. I do want to note, though, that you've already gone a long way in addressing the issues I had.
  • "Ueshiba developed aikido primarily during the late 1920s through the 1930s through the synthesis of the older martial arts that he had studied."
  • "In aikido, as in virtually all Japanese martial arts, there are both physical and mental aspects of training, which are often dependant and interrelated. The physical training in aikido is diverse, covering both general physical fitness and conditioning, as well as several specific areas."
  • "In applying the technique, it is the responsibility of nage to prevent injury to uke by employing a speed and force of application that is commensurate with their partner's proficiency in ukemi."
  • "As a martial art concerned not only with fighting proficiency but also with the betterment of daily life, this mental aspect is of key importance to aikido practitioners."
  • "The vast majority of aikido styles use the kyū/dan ranking system common to gendai budō, however the actual requirements for each belt level differs between styles, so they are not necessarily comparable or interchangeable."
In general, my issues are with repetition of words and with placement of clauses. I'd suggest taking a look at the longer and more complex sentences, and checking that they're succinct and express a solid idea. Of the five sentences above, I think the first, third, and fifth are unnecessarily long/wordy, and the second and fourth could be clearer in their intent. I don't want to make too much of it, because it's a fairly minor point -- the writing is not bad. I just think it could be better, in places. Citations were my major concern; since those have been addressed, I've stricken my oppose. Shimeru 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changes have been addressedComment I've added some more references to several specific sections. I think the article is on track, but maybe the LEAD needs to be restated to better summarize the article and touch on all main points.Mike Searson 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but for purposes of full disclosure, I've been a major contributor for the last several months. Bradford44 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to comment that I think the picture in the box is *PERFECT* - if this is promoted and goes on the main page, that's definitely the one I'm using. Raul654 18:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I've always found it kind of lackluster. To the uninitiated, it probably just looks like "Some guy holding his arms out while some other guy does a somersault or something." --GenkiNeko 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per 1c - more cites are needed, and referencing needs work. When books are cited, they need individual page numbers for each source. LuciferMorgan 12:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but I don't think it is far off, and if you fix these (or convince me they don't need fixing) I'll support.
    • The section on ki drifts off the subject somewhat, covering what should be covered by the ki article itself (first two paragraphs could be condensed into a couple of lines).
      • Good eye; this was in need of editing. I've done a bit, though there's plenty of room for further refocusing. (If anyone wants to expand the Ki article itself, that'd also be helpful; it presently seems mostly focused on the Chinese concept of Qi.) --GenkiNeko 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section on styles is too listy, when it could be covered nicely in straight prose, and what seem to be the criteria for inclusion (stated at the beginning of the section) are not applied to those styles included. Some mention of the wider "traditional v sport" aikido styles might be appropriate here too.
      • Changed to prose but it will need some fixing up. The criteria were for major styles as opposed to all - in any case I created a separate general article for styles.Peter Rehse 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some sections are under-cited: Philosophical and political developments (important to reference this as it makes claims as to the primary influences on Ueshiba), The international dissemination of aikido, Techniques, and Ki.
      • I think it has been addressed.
    • It would be nice to have some more photos. While the infobox picture is indeed *PERFECT* the techniques look so good when performed properly that it is a shame not to have more pics, and some of the weapons wouldn't go amiss either (Not objecting on this basis, I just think it would look better if you can get hold of some). Yomanganitalk 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that more photos would be great. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to turn up any that are clearly GFDL. Aikidofaq has some, and their admin said, "Sure, use whatever", but I'm not convinced he himself understands the situation or is authorized to grant use. --GenkiNeko 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The new Mayflower search engine on Commons turns up a few, I don't know whether you've considered them? Yomanganitalk 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - we have. I re-added one that had previously been used. The difficulty is finding a picture which corresponds to a point being made in the article.Peter Rehse 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most issues have been addressed but - well there were quite a few changes. Can those who made comments take another look and be specific in their comments.Peter Rehse 04:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - Can someone please do something about the use of sub-sub-sub-etc sections? I think the article layout looks horrible at the moment. Sub-sections are more than enough. If this issue is addressed I will change my vote to support. (If I don't check back, please leave a message on my talk page). John Smith's 10:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Personally I like the way the material is organized. Do you have any suggestions.Peter Rehse 05:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I much prefer the improved layout. John Smith's 08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Well, first of all, for some reason, every letter "O" has been turned into a little square, It only happens on the Aikido Article, and I didn't bother to check the code to see what's up. That's probably an easy fix tho. The prose, while well written, is a little watered down and white-breadish, It would be nice if the photos, instead of saying "an aikido throw", would say the name of the technique being used. I think the section on the techniques should go entirely out, as Judo, ju-jutsu, daito-ryu, etc., also use the same names for the same techniques. Put something there that's unique to aikido, and differentiates it from other martial arts. While on the subject, there is a wholly inadequite explanation of "aiki", what it is, how it works, and what it does. This is an element that is at the very core of the art, and it is hardly touched on. Opposed for now, but overall the article has real potential. Be well. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
I think the section on the techniques should go entirely out, as Judo, ju-jutsu, daito-ryu, etc., also use the same names for the same techniques.
Actually they don't (even different aikido styles use different names) and the techniques listed are considered representative of the aikido repetoire.
wholly inadequite explanation of "aiki"
Its mentioned in the very first section - with a link to an expanded article.
The square O's are probably a reflection of the bar above long o sounds which is discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Its pretty standard - I would check your computer settings.Peter Rehse 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The square O's are a computer setting. On one of my machines I see them, but on the other I see the kanji. Mike Searson 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the responses to the above. I think the main thing we can take from that reviewer's lookover is: "Put something there that's unique to aikido, and differentiates it from other martial arts." Perhaps working in some comparison makes sense? I say "perhaps" because this could be more trouble than it's worth. --GenkiNeko 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aikido/archive1&oldid=116625855"