• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books or not
  • Fixed. Removed location from one reference. bamse (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retrieval dates are not needed for convenience links (Google Books for instance) to print-based sources
  • I thought so too, but in this FLC, Afro pointed me to ((Cite book)) which states: "accessdate: ... Should be used when url parameter is used." bamse (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 199 and 207 are only citing Adolphson and Kamens as authors of the Heian Japan book, whilst the bibliographical entry also cites Matsumoto as author of the book
  • Fixed. Added Matsumoto. bamse (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In the bibliography but with no citations: Brokaw & Chow (2005); Eliot & Rose (2009); Miner, Odagiri & Morrell (1988); Sansom & Sansom (1961) and Wedgeworth (1992)
  • Fixed. Removed all of them. They only applied to another list which was at some point split off from this list of Japanese books. bamse (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The ISBNs ought to be hyphenated (I can do that for you)
  • I read ISBN and added hyphens to the first entry in the bibliography (Addiss, Groemer, Rimer). It was hard work. Is there a (semi)-automatic method to do this? bamse (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a bit of WP:CITEKILL in this list. Have you considered bundling them?
  • Will have a look at it. bamse (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for your edits/fixes in the bibliography already. I am slowly working my way through the article in order to reduce CITEKILL. Should be done with it by tomorrow. bamse (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I reduced CITEKILL by joining related citations or removing some refs which said the same as others. bamse (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks fine, and the research and work you have put into this list (and many others) is impressive Bamse. All the best, Eisfbnore • talk 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrase check

I do not have the time to check each sentence in this list for close paraphrasing, but I'll note the few I find below. A tip to avoid close paraphrasing is to write from muliple sources and move content between sentences.

• Article: "…the Engishiki, the greatest legal compendium of the ritsuryō age.[198][199] It was compiled from 905 to 927 by Tadahira and others under command of Emperor Daigo." Source: "The Engishiki was compiled between 905 and 927 under the command of Emperor Daigo." [2]

To be honest, that was actually the only one I was able to find, and it does seem easy to get rid of. Well done! Eisfbnore • talk 18:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been addressed by Truthkeeper88 in this edit. bamse (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if attribution of facts (opinion could be good) is the best thing to do here. The line David Lu's book is not an opinion or an analysis, merely a statement of fact. The better thing to do here would in my opinion be to move information from his sentence into others, i.e. convey the meaning but using our own words. Also, Lu does present an assessment of the Engishiki in his book which could be worth including. Perhaps "Compiled between 905 and 927 by Tadahira, the Engishiki is the most respected legal compendium of the ritsuryō age and an important resource for the study of the Heian period court system. Emperor Daigo commanded its compilation; the Engishiki is according to David Lu an "invaluable" resource and "one of the greatest compilations of laws and precedents". Or: "Compiled between 905 and 927 under the command of Emperor Daigo, the Engishiki is according to David Lu "one of the greatest compilations of laws and precedents" and "invaluable in the study of the court system in the Heian period". Or: "An important resource for the study of the Heian period court system is the Engishiki, combiled by Tadahira between 905 and 927. It is the most respected legal compendium of the ritsuryō age and, according to David Lu, "invaluable in the study of the court system in the Heian period". Hope this helps, --Eisfbnore • talk 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It did help indeed. I went with your first suggestion. bamse (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now. Please see my comments above and let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. bamse (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks good. I tried to introduce WP:CITEBUNDLE in this list, but it didn't look nice and I reverted it. --Eisfbnore • talk 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Heian period doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead.

• Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still see two links, one in the second paragraph and one in the third. One is piped and shows up as Heian, if that helps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, I missed one. Removed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Usage: Add "by" to "sortable pressing the arrows symbols."?

• Done. Changed to "sortable by pressing the arrows symbols."bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In a few of the notes here, remove the capitalization of the first words after semi-colons.

• Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Japanese literature: "The Tale of Genji is a work written in the early 11th century by noblewoman, (Murasaki Shikibu)." Remove the comma at the end and make a change to "by a noblewoman", I'd say. Also, who calls it "the single most impressive achievement of Heian civilization"? Sounds like a pretty strong declaration, especially when preceded by "Indeed".

  It's important the Murasaki Shikibu was a noblewoman - otherwise she wouldn't have been educated, so I'd be opposed to seeing it removed, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also prefer to keep the "nobelwoman". In addition to what Truthkeeper88 wrote, the word points out that Murasaki Shikibu is a woman which would be hard to guess from the name and which is relevant since the preceding sentence discusses male/female differences in Japanese literature. As for who uses such a strong declaration, that's Helen Craig McCullough. Re-checked the source, and the exact quote is: "...single most impressive accomplishment of Heian civilization, Murasaki Shikibu's The Tale of Genji" (not "achievement"). Do you think that this should be attributed to Helen Craig McCullough or do you think that it should be removed, because it is a too strong statement? bamse (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I attributed it: "The Tale of Genji written in the early 11th century by a noblewoman (Murasaki Shikibu) is according to Helen Craig McCullough the "single most impressive accomplishment of Heian civilization"." Other sources say basically the same, see here. Please let me know how you like it. bamse (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "were originally Buddhist influenced, and meant to be educational." Needs "were" before "meant".

• Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Waka: "In the late 9th century, Waka...". Why is Waka capitalized?

  Because of bad eyes. Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove comma after "renga" toward the end of the section?

• Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Monogatari, Japanese-Chinese poetry, setsuwa: "and, for its calligraphy". Remove comma here.

  Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Add "a" to "has been designated as National Treasure" toward the end of the section.

• Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• History books and historical tales: "and four, Bungo (730s), Harima (circa 715), Hizen (730s) as fragments." That's three according to my count, unless one of them is meant to count twice.

• I had forgotton the Hitachi fudoki. Added. bamse (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing related to this: "and" should be placed before Hizen. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. bamse (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, who says the Nihon Shoki is the most interesting thing in this category? That's a pretty big leap to be making without some form of attribution.

• Varley states: "All were written in Chinese and, with the exception of the Nihon Shoki, were notably dull, consisting as they did of a dry recitation of the facts and events of court government." Anyway, I removed that phrase, since it is not really relevant here and because one could argue whether it is really the most interesting of the histories. bamse (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Kojiki, long been neglected by scholars until the 18th century". Remove "been", or add "which had" after the comma.

• Tweaked but slightly differently Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Others: Another "has been designated as National Treasure" that needs an "a".

• Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 2: Flip the order of "blank two".

• Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 16: Should the first comma be a semi-colon?

• Yes! Changed. bamse (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A few of the notes (2, 6, and 8) need periods at the end. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Added periods. bamse (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Four dab links are showing: kanshi, fascicles, kanshi and Toji.
  • Fixed kanshi and Toji. There seems to be some disagreement where the concept of Fascicle (book) is to be explained. At some point it was a redirect to book which is what is meant here. However it does not seem to be explained in that article. At the moment Fascicle (book) points to the dab page Fascicle which explains the term at the bottom (A discrete section of a book issued or published separately). Not sure what to do about it.
• "(in the form of Chinese books) to Japan around 400 AD" put the parenthetical clause after "400 AD", don't split the sentence as you currently do.
  • Moved parenthesis to after "400 AD".
• That sentence needs a little work - it has "writing", "writing" and "wrote" all in one hit.
  • I've tweaked but now it has Chinese books, Chinese writing and Chinese scribes. Does it need another go? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. If necessary, "Korean and Chinese" could be replaces by "mainland" (which is a common term used in references to refer to these two countries with which Japan had most exchange at the time). To make it understandable for non-expert, how about adding a footnote explaining what "mainland" means here? bamse (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you link "Classical Japan" to a specific section of the History of Japan rather than the whole article? (Like you have for Feudal Japan...)
  • Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Last lead paragraph, can you pipelink those awkward list titles, e.g. just link "Chinese book National Treasures" instead of saying "Chinese book National Treasures of the List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Chinese books)"
  • Good idea. Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "4000 pieces" -> "4,000 pieces".
  • Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You say tanka and then the second time you say tanka you explain what it is, perhaps you could put the explanation the first time.
  • Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "31 syllable" hyphante.
  • Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "century.[nb 4][42][20]" can you order references numerically please? Check others.
  • Done. I used WP:AWB which does it automatically. bamse (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What's an en-dash in "author" represent considering you have "various" and "unknown".
  • Fixed. No more en-dashes in that column. bamse (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How does Format sort? Alphabetically I guess, but it's not particularly helpful when you start some entries with numbers. 16 bound books sorts before One bound book, for example.
  • Sorting is explained in the usage section. I think that sorting by the amount of items is not that useful, so I made it to sort by the type of objects: "scroll/book/other". bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "more than 1000 anecdotes" -> "1,000".
  • Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Inside Notes"" why is Notes capitalised?
  • As the title of the work, I capitalised it. Is that not correct?
• "There are 18 National Treasures that do not ..." specifically of the Japanese book type right?
  • Specified as "There are 18 Japanese book National Treasures..." bamse (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "1572-1662" en-dash required.
  • Done. bamse (talk)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for your comments. All have been addressed. As far as I can see for three issues ("writing/writing/wrote", dab of fascicle, capitalization of "Inside Notes") your feedback is required. bamse (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]