Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Assessment

message: I'm just making sure I understand this correctly. Any article placed on this page is one that the person placing it here isn't sure about, or that is disputed as to which assessment rank it should be? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How this works

message: I feel that the way this page is used should be scrapped. Only a few people come by to check it. It should be based on  this. Feel free to contradict me though. XP Ominae (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at how we did WP:ANIME/ASSESS, also look at . G.A.S  08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that can probably work. Thing is that the page'll have to revamped from scratch... Ominae (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. This will also involve moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#Article assessment here. I would also suggest merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#FAC and FAR requests here as well. G.A.S  05:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing of assessment page

message: Hello, I changed Yoko Ono from high importance to low importance. Thanks, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoko Ono 

message: I have a question about the articles on Japanese names, especially the given names, like Shigenobu (which I recently expanded). Should they be assessed like regular articles, with (Start, C-class, etc) or as a "Disambiguation" page?  Boneyard90 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of Name Articles 

message: I saw that the article Sudoku is rated as "Top" importance. I propose that it be downgraded to "Mid" or "High" at best. Here are my reasons:
* The game was NOT invented in Japan. It was invented by a guy in Indiana.
* The name "Sudoku" was invented in Japan.
* While the game is an international phenomenon, it should not be considered a "core topic" (per Top-importance criteria) on the subject of Japan. 
I submit that Japan without sudoku wouldn't be very different than it is today, and therefore does not rank among articles such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Kabuki, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (all Top-importance). Boneyard90 (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. bamse (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Downgraded to "Mid" importance. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment#Importance scale: "For example, Sudoku is ..." needs to be rewritten with another example. --Kusunose 00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I suggest something that fulfills the "Top-importance" definition but easily recognized by anyone familiar with Japanese culture, like Sushi or Haiku, both of which are already rated Top-importance. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudoku "Top"? 

message: I would like to reassess the article Transport in Japan from High-Importance to Top-Importance. The articles Rail transport in Japan and Narita International Airport are rated Top-Importance, so I don't see why Transport in Japan isn't Top-Importantance. Is this okay? --Horai 551 10:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport in Japan 

message: Has anyone been assessing the articles here. Most date back to '14/15. Ominae (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessments 

message: Hello,
The Paralympics and the Olympics are equal endeavors and deserve to be treated and recognized equally. I noticed that the 2020 Summer Olympics was listed as "High-importance" for WikiProject Japan/Sport/Tokyo; yet the 2020 Summer Paralympics was listed as "Low-importance." I would like to see the two listed at the same level, preferably, both at High-importance. This inequality of importance levels is not only discriminatory, it also decreases the quality, quantity, profile of, and attention to Wikipedia articles related to the Paralympics. If you start looking up articles relating to the Paralympics, you will see these have been underresourced and effectively ignored, which harms Wikipedia's reputation and does little to aid the parity between the Paralympics and the Olympics. Yes, I believe this is also important for Japan as well. Like any country, some of the citizens of Japan have disabilities and I believe that this would be very important to Japanese citizens with disabilities as well as people with disabilities around the world and it will be a unifying moment for Japan and the whole world. I respectfully ask that the page for the 2020 Summer Paralympics be upgraded to High-importance, as the 2020 Summer Olympics already is. Note: WikiProject Olympics already have both listed at High-importance so there is precedent for this.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Summer_Paralympicshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Summer_Olympics Please let me know if I put this conversation in the wrong place and let me know where a discussion on this can be held if this is the case.
Respectfully,
-TenorTwelve (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parity of importance levels between the 2020 Summer Paralympics and the 2020 Summer Olympics 

message: Hi, I think this article (of which I'm the main author) deserves at least a B rating, and the WikiProject Japan banner only lets me set it to C without a review by a member of this WikiProject. I'd be grateful if someone could do an assessment and tell me if it needs improving for a B rating. Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Khalili Collection of Kimono]] 

message: Without meaning to disrespect, I recently noticed that the WikiProject Japan doesn't seem to have active volunteers monitoring the requests for assessment. Perhaps there aren't any currently active volunteers specifically assigned to the task?
It's a little awkward submitting a request to a list with 8+ articles awaiting assessment from 2 years ago. Perhaps those articles should be either (a) assessed and archived (b) declined and archived. Cleaning up the queue would be more reassuring.
On a related note, I noticed an inconsistency between the WikiProject Languages Assessment requirements and the WikiProject Japan Assessment requirements.
WikiProject Languages Assessment	Class A: … having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere
WikiProject Japan Assessment    	Class B: … Editors should also note that assessments of B or A require project consensus
Since the B class criteria can presumably be assessed with a reasonable accuracy (there is, after all, a checklist that must be marked in the template to do so), perhaps this requirement could be relaxed for B-class articles under certain limited conditions. For example, "If the article meets the B-class criteria, it can be assessed without a request for project consensus, except in cases where the article is about living persons or current progressing events."
The goal of this suggestion is to reduce the queue of articles requesting assessment for the volunteers assigned to doing the task. This suggestion is put forward on account of unassessed articles remaining in the requests for assessment since September 2019, so perhaps the task is overwhelming for the WikiProject Japan team of volunteers.
Please don't take the suggestion as a harsh criticism, I only intend to find a pragmatic workaround for the issue. JKVeganAbroad (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. Likely that there's not a lot of people willing to give a glance and see. Did you tell the mods about this idea? Ominae (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who can assess articles?