GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Zanimum ( talk · contribs) 15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This looks fascinating, I'll review. --
Zanimum (
talk)
15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I reviewed this the night of the 17th, didn't post, and have been searching for the review on and off ever since.
Passing lead, See also, Notes, References, Notes cited. -- Zanimum ( talk) 12:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Passing all! The early review questioned the Chinese lettering, asking how the scholars knew it was Japanese, if the writing was in Chinese, but I just read the intro to kanji. Since most readers won't over analyze the kanji writing, or they'll know what kanji is, it's not an issue. -- Zanimum ( talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Zanimum ( talk · contribs) 15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This looks fascinating, I'll review. --
Zanimum (
talk)
15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I reviewed this the night of the 17th, didn't post, and have been searching for the review on and off ever since.
Passing lead, See also, Notes, References, Notes cited. -- Zanimum ( talk) 12:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Passing all! The early review questioned the Chinese lettering, asking how the scholars knew it was Japanese, if the writing was in Chinese, but I just read the intro to kanji. Since most readers won't over analyze the kanji writing, or they'll know what kanji is, it's not an issue. -- Zanimum ( talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)