Talk:Women in Japan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6 good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I am on hand to make adjustments! --Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Broadness

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article and for your efforts at improving the gender balance of articles covered on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are not yet any "Women in country [x]" articles that I can use as templates to review this article against. I say this because it's difficult to review an article like this for "broadness" without formulating an idea about what a "broad" article would be. Some things an article should cover would include:

A historical perspective about the views of and roles of women
A regional perspective, taking into account the regional variation in the roles and treatment of women
Information about health, including relating to conditions solely or primarily affecting women and relating to childbearing - including age of childbearing and number of children
A good, diplomatic and well-worded lead (I think Women of India comes close)
Information about the business lives of women, their pay, professions, pay gaps and what leadership roles they play
Information about the role women play in politics and political leadership, their rights to vote, and feminist movements
Information about the legal rights of women to participate in society, including hold property, drink alcohol, vote, marry, divorce, and be protected from harrassment and abuse from others
Information about crimes against women and significant issues that women face in society
Information about the roles of women in education, including participation in education, role in teaching, types of education studied
Information about any particularly notable women in the historical or modern development of the country
Women in media (news, television) and portrayal of women in media and movies

This is not an exhaustive list, but my thoughts on some factors that would constitute a "broad" article. This article contains a lot of relevant information, but I think it is missing a fair bit of the above. Some areas that it is missing include:

a historical perspective between the 12th and 17th centuries, and before the 12th century;
a regional perspective (eg north/south japan, urban/rural, and okinawa)
a greater portrayal about health
some more information about the type of professions that women work in
more information about feminist movements, if any
information about notable women from japan
some more information about the legal rights of women, such as rights to inherit, hold property, etc.

I also have some concerns about the "Beauty" section, which I think may need some attention in terms of the structure and wording.

Lead

I do not think the lead adequately summarises this article's content. I think a relatively good lead to emulate would be Women in India's lead, which somehow summarises this huge topic quite well.

Neutrality

This is not one I was expecting to comment on, but I do have concerns this article isn't covering the topic neutrally. My main concern is that a lot of the content analyses women's role in an economic or epidemiological sense without adequately covering the humanities side of the picture, eg the beauty section or the current lead ("economic conditions for women remain unbalanced.[3] Modern policy initiatives to encourage motherhood and workplace participation have had mixed results.[4] While a high percentage of Japanese women are college graduates,[5] and many hold jobs, they typically earn 40% less than their male counterparts, and make up 77% of the part-time work force.[6] Traditional expectations for married women and mothers is cited as a barrier to full economic equality"

Summary

I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to help out. I'm sorry to flag all these issues to you, but if this article improves, it has the potential not only to play a role in addressing WP's gender gap, but also create a template article for how the many other "Women in [x]" articles can get to GA. I'm happy to discuss any of the above issues with you, and hope you don't feel too disheartened! Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not disheartened at all - you've given me some direction. Now it's time to get going on it! --Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great :). I will mark the review as "failed" for the time being because I think it may take some time to nut out these changes. Please don't take this as discouraging, great articles often take some time to write. I look forward to a renomination in the future :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]