I am nominating this article for the second time. The first nomination closed without passing in late March which was a bit disappointing considering most of the points raised were addressed to the satisfaction of those who made them. I hope that those changes and those made over the subsequent months are satisfactory. The aikido article has been featured in the Portal:Martial arts and is considered to be a very good model for the martial arts articles. It is far more detailed than the Esparanto version and far better referenced than the French and Esparanto versions, both of which made featured article status. Aikido in itself is difficult to write about as there are a number of important styles that have their own take on the art. The specifics are detailed on pages relating to those styles and in my opinion the current Aikido article does an admirable job of representing a style neutral overview of the art. The developement of the article was a long slow process with contributions of practitioners and instructors from several styles of Aikido.Peter Rehse 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a number of requests for citations. As a rule try to make sure that every paragraph has at least one citation. The article is almost there, you just need to get extra citations in and watch out for double spaces after full stops. John Smith's 13:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All your requested citations (and a couple more) have been added.Peter Rehse 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article appears to be written from an informed martial arts viewpoint which is sympathetic to the practice of Aikido. Take the section "Spirit of Aikido", for instance, it mixes philosophy and critical assessment in an odd way. How is the notion of "moving" elevated when compared to "clashing"? Who considers aikido to be symbolic, outside of its founder? The history and technique sections seem well composed, but the troublesome trend appears again in "Mental training". To someone who is not well versed in the martial arts, the importance and effect of this is not clear. One wonders how the ability to relax the mind and body allow a practitioner to meet an attack with "confidence and directness" (and what do these terms refer to - getting hit, blocking, or countering?). Ueshiba's quotation is equally enigmatic, is there some criticism or analysis which could be included that delineates his intent?
I removed the word "elevated" - that was POV.Peter Rehse 06:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "some consider" statement is in need of clarification. Is this the majority view held by practitioners? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did not write it, tend to agree with you, and don't see aikido in that way but some do. No idea about majority or not. Let me think about it. If it can't be supported one way or the other I will remove it.Peter Rehse 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the entire sentence. It really adds nothing to the section and I agree with the problems it causes.Peter Rehse 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few other points:
The history section ends abruptly in the 50s/60s, something notable must have happened to the field in the past forty years.
The history comment was quite good - the ending seemed pretty abrupt. Basically after that time period covered the history of Aikido is really the history of the independent styles which are covered in their own articles. However, the emergence of those styles, is part of the history. I therefore moved the Style section into the History section and expanded it a bit.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Physical training, mental training, & Ki tend to intersect in a few places, perhaps it would make sense to consolidate them.
Sure there is some intersection of physcial, mental and ki - since they all come together to form aikido. Yet they are distinct and should be kept separate.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, this was an outsider's appraisal of the coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another paragraph to "Styles of aikido" or another section, something that explains the extent of aikido proliferation in mainstream martial arts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the comment about "aikido proliferation in mainstream martial arts". It is pretty mainstream in its own right, something that has been demonstrated within the article. It has an international breadth and has been established over quite a long period.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This concern was ancillary to the point about the history section. The article has a better flow now that the two are merged and the development/spread of Aikido is easier to understand. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have not been a contributor to this article, but have watched its progress with interest over the past few months since the July attempt. I'm very impressed: it's a clearly written, well-referenced, inclusive article. The section on physical technique is excellent in distilling perhaps hundreds of techniques in the art to a dozen or so major attack types and response types. The descriptions avoid being too detailed, yet each is clear what kind of attack or response it is. I disagree with the comment above that the mental training paragraph is unclear; I think the average reader would understand that cultivating a calm presence of mind would be an advantage during an attack. I think this is great work and definitely worthy of featured status. BWatkins 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the obvious reason that there are ((citation needed)) tags left. That's an absolute showstopper for FA. Otherwise, it's very good - well structured, sensible use of images, meaningful citations, etc. Will change to support when missing citations have been inserted. 82.71.48.158 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is one left and of course the tags were added after the submission - the reference is availabe just that it might take a bit of digging to find an exact one.Peter Rehse 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All citation tags have been filled.Peter Rehse 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been a part-time contributor, but feel the article was ready months ago. Mike Searson 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article would probably meet the GA criteria, but it has a very long way to go before it is representative of the very best of Wikipedia. The introduction is slim when compared to other FA articles and the general standard. The section currently titled "Spirit of Aikido" should be renamed for encyclopedic tone to a more sober title such as Etymology or something similar. Several potentially controversial statements, such as the statement of Ueshiba's goal in the intro, are not directly cited. I'm not sure if descendant articles exist (such as History of Aikido) but they should be linked under the headers for the appropriate sections if they do. The article is heavy on technical aspects such as technique execution and lexicography, and lacking in others. This is a general symptom of the basic problem with the article; it reads like it was plainly written for and by Aikidoka. An FA-class article needs to work harder to state the obvious and write for the previously uneducated reader. Examples of areas needing expansion to reach true comprehensiveness include: current events history, at least some mention of the tangible differences in every style rather than just dates and names, further discussion of the art's relation to and influence on any other martial arts, the article lacks a sufficient discussion of how Ueshiba's writings shaped the practice and theory of Aikido, and the article seems to lack a substantial discussion of why Aikido has not been morphed into a competitive sport like Karate or Taekwondo. Lastly, the article contains no mention of any criticism of Aikido, such as that to be found in martial arts circles. Despite what I feel is pretty obvious empirical evidence, not everybody takes Aikido's word on the effectiveness of the techniques and approach at face value. I forget exactly where I've seen it, but I have also heard criticism of potential for injury in Aikido training. VanTucky(talk) 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Critism section has been started. Injuries were discussed in the article already with references but expanded in the Critism section.Peter Rehse 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the introduction section to more clearly define what AIkido is and how it is distinguished from other common martial arts.Peter Rehse 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Differences in styles has been alluded to but is best expanded in the individual articles. The intro expansion I think further addresses the issue.Peter Rehse 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Writings - well frankly speaking they didn't really. His relationship to his senior students when they studied with him is far more important. Most of the literature available was written once or twice removed.Peter Rehse 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit of Aikido section has been renamed.Peter Rehse 09:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving on most of these points. However, I honestly must say that for a martial art which is so widely popular and rich in complexity, the article still feels as if it isn't comprehensive enough for me to fully support it as part of the best of Wikipedia. I understand that having descendant articles for history and styles can cut down on the content of the parent article, but I'm just not comfortable signing off as it stands. Good work so far though. VanTucky(talk) 06:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been a minor contributor (mainly vandal spotting). From reading the article as someone who knows a minimal about about Aikido this gives a good introduction and overview and is well sourced. VanTucky's point about not being comprehensive enough seem more opinion, a complex subject cannot be covered comprehensively in an encyclopaedia, but it can be introduced comprehensively which this does. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:51, 30 August 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.