Talk:Chinese submarine enters Japanese waters
This article has been submitted for review by the Wikinews community. The review period is currently a minimum of 8 hours for regular articles and 4 hours for urgent stories. An article needs to find consensus - no objections - in the following categories in order to be accepted for publication. If the review period elapses without comments, the article may be published. See also Wikinews:Article stages#Review for information on what constitutes a valid objection.
Please comment on any of the following issues:
- Neutrality: All factual claims need to be attributed or sourced. On-topic information which is relevant to the article should be added. Off-topic information should NOT be added to "balance out" an article.
- Accuracy: All facts should be verifiable. Factual claims which are attributed to a person or group, but considered false by another person or group can remain in the article as long as the controversy is accurately represented.
- Legality: Does the article violate any laws of the state of Florida in the United States? Specifically, does it violate other people's copyright, in text or images? Please make sure that no images have been directly copied from a non-free source without permission, and that any brief text quoted from a non-free source is attributed accurately. Use Google News and Google Search and pick individual phrases from the article to verify this.
- Writing: Is it well-written and understandable?
- Policies: Does the article comply with Wikinews:Content guide and Wikinews:Style guide?
- Comprehensiveness: Relevant information on the topic should be included, while keeping in mind timeliness. Given that an almost infinite amount can be said about any topic, objections in this category carry less weight than those in other categories.
Add your comments below.
Is there a specific motive attributed to this action? I read something on it before, but have forgotten. Also, the order of family and personal name for the PM and FM do not match that in Koizumi's (Junichiro Koizumi) Wikipedia entry.--119 07:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- From what I understand, there's certainly speculation on motives, but I highly doubt the Chinese, if they truly had a motive beyond human error, are about to come out and say it. As for name order... Yeah, that's something we need to hammer out, I think. I just went with the method that I personally prefer because, from what I understand, that's what this demo state is all about; stating ideals and working out functional compromises. :) Garrett Albright 08:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Superb - let's get this published. Needs the location in the intro, however, per the style guide. Ambi 12:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have just scanned about a dozen articles on this issue in Japanese. Where I could verify, there was no factual errors. But since the article writes about many facts, I could check only a part - background/contextual facts were not checked at all.
One thing that I am concerned is that the "alert" that is said to be the second time since the end of WWII. It is reported in a few sources that there was indeed the second "海上警備行動" since the World War II. The term suggests that it is an alert specifically related to sea surface. Are there other types of alerts, such as the ones related to sky or land? I assume so. Was there any other alert before? I don't know. So this is a potential error, I felt.
- What was grounds for the only other alert seems relevant, but what's with the land/air/etc.? I don't see how it relates. --119 07:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Other facts I find relevant:
- Japanese FM asked Chinese FM in the Santiago meeting to confirm the statement made by Chinese VFM about the incident. It was confirmed.
- The Japanese PM recognized and accepted the apology. (on the 16th, in front of press).
Tomos 06:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Great. I hope you will edit the article with those facts, especially as those sources aren't even listed. A lot of people are commenting on things they're just as capable of fixing as the next user... --119 07:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think we have a potencial Not Neutral Point of View problem here. I don't like the title neither. I suggest some changes in the title and in the article --carlosar Nov 18 13:55 UTC 2004
- Could you be more specific? Remember, objections should be actionable, so someone else can go in and address them.--Eloquence 14:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There is also an issue about whether it is appropriate to merely use the term "China" and "Chinese" when there is still a rival government in Taipei which claims to be the ony legitimate government in China. I know some people might think that this is nit-picking but this kind of thing might become more of an issue in future, so this is something we should work out now. --Ce garcon 15:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have read the article again. I think it is acceptable. Unless someone else protest, I think you should publish it. -- carlosar Nov 18 17:59:32 UTC 2004