User talk:Godzilla5428/sandbox

Adam, this is a good start. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles generally do not use bullet points. I am guessing you are doing that for ease of reference while you are editing. I'd like to see more of the sources you are using/adding. We can talk about this when we meet. Elyssafaison (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, I thought this was a colossal improvement the current Fukuda Hideko article, adding in significantly more detail. Also, it was very well linked to other Wikipedia articles. Keep up the good work! Here were some of my notes You're probably going to be doing this, but just remember to add an infobox. I thought the Early Life section was a pretty good summary. For the Osaka Incident, if possible, I would try to explain more of Hideko's motivations in wanting to join the group. It kind of comes out of nowhere. Aftereffects (which I think is spelled After effects, not sure if its supposed to be a single word), is a pretty good section as well. Thorough yet concise enough to not lose focus nor content.

--NomadLife (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Lac Luong, Bridger of Worlds

Peer Review

Your lead is clear, and summarizes the article well. The structure of the article is also well thought out. Though the article does go over her ideals, consider putting her beliefs in their own section. So that they can also be summarized in further detail. Your citation appear to be legitimate and the article is also is neutral. Everything seems to be good. Continue adding to the article as much as you can, good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmith71 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! This is a good start - the only notes I have would be that the quote in the last section (the one on her grave marker) is unsourced and needs a source. Other than that there's a very slight tone issue in that it reads in a slightly positive light, but I can't place my finger on any one thing that would be causing this, so I don't think that this is anything to worry about. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Review Response

• What were the most helpful comments/suggestions you received, and why? I am glad that I got advice on expanding upon the Osaka incident (User:NomadLife): Her motivations for joining were indeed not articulate well enough in my article, and their inclusion is worthwhile. It was a worry I had about several sections while writing the revision, so having others read it and find out where changes are most needed is useful.

• Are there certain suggestions you do NOT plan to take up in your continued work on your article? Why not? I am still torn about adding an ideals section versus revising the last section (User:Esmith71). On the one hand, I think it could be an excellent addition and I appreciate the suggestion. It would probably be one of the things I would look for if I was searching for her. My worries are that 1. It would be harder to be unbiased in tone, which is something I want to address. And 2. That I don’t know if I could go into very enough detail to justify the section. However, I am leaning towards adding it at the moment.

• Are there suggestions you do intend to address? If so, how do you plan to address them? Either find a source for the quote the original article used (User:Shalor (Wiki Ed)) or getting rid of the quote. I liked ending it with that, but it definitely needs a source. Re-reading my changes and seeing where I can make it more neutral. Changing after effects to two words.

• You may include any general impressions you have about the peer review process, or about the specific reviews you received. They were very helpful and I appreciate the work put into them. All the changes proposed were reasonable, and I think will make the article better. Godzilla5428 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• With quotes the best way to find sourcing is to just enter the quote into a search query and look to see if it's listed in any reliable sources. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Response to your Peer Review Response

Adam, you've done a great deal of work here, and have made significant contributions to this article already. I'm have a list of comments, small and large, so here goes: There are couple of things people might be looking to know about her that should be up in the lead. One is that you might want to include her birth name (Kagayama), as it was included in the original article. Often this is an important piece of information for people doing research on a person. Also, I think you should include reference to her involvement with the Freedom and People's Rights Movement in the lead. It was the single most important political movement of the time. When you do reference the movement in the "early life" section, for some reason you have left the word "Freedom" off the name of the movement. That should be added back in. Starting in the lead, you refer to her as "Hideko". It would be better to refer to her as "Fukuda". Referring to people by given rather than family names is less formal and more intimate, and has historically often been done to women and not men. Let's give her some respect and refer to her the way you would be likely to refer to a male in a biography. The one exception to this rule is if the person has had many family names over time, usually due to multiple marriages. One of your classmates ran into this issue with Kato Shidzue, for whom it makes more sense to use her given name in order to eliminate confusion. But for Fukuda, I don't think that problem exists. Also in this section (and for the rest of the article), you have put your footnotes numbers before the period at the end of the sentence. Footnotes always come after the final punctuation (usually either a period or a close quotation mark). Still in "early life", never start a sentence with an Arabic numeral: write out "One year later…" In that same sentence, don't end with a preposition. Instead: "at which they both taught."

In the Osaka Incident section: start by saying, "Soon after arriving in Tokyo…" If this were all in one section you could omit mentioning Tokyo again, but if someone wants to skip directly to your Osaka Incident section, they would have to backtrack to make sense of that first sentence if you don't mention it. When you mention the "Liberal Party", you should link to "Liberal Party of Japan (1881)" in Wikipedia. You need to look again at your sources on the Osaka Incident, as you have a very significant factual mistake here: Oi and Fukuda's (and other's) efforts were NOT to "overthrow Japanese imperial control" in Korea. In fact, the group's efforts provided certain justifications for Japanese imperialism. I do not have the Hane book in front of me so I can't look to see what you are misinterpreting, but have a look again. Also, you can go to JSTOR and search for Oi Kentaro, and you will find an old but good article by Marius Jansen that explain the Osaka Incident in detail. It does not mention Fukuda, but you can still cite it for the Osaka Incident section. You can also look up Osaka Incident 大阪事件in the Japan Knowledge database; there is an English blurb about it there that should help you. Actually, there is quite a bit about this incident in the original article that you have deleted that is quite good. Think about what you have removed from the original, and why.

After Effects and Heiminsha: now that you have figured out that "After Effects" is two words, I am going to suggest that you delete it altogether. It is not a very helpful descriptor. You might consider putting the first paragraph of this section up in the Osaka Incident section, since it describes the results of that incident. Also in that paragraph, spell out the numbers of her children. In addition to the rule about never starting a sentence with an Arabic numeral, there is another rule about when to spell out numbers: always spell them out if they are fewer than two digits long. Hence, "157," but "thirty-five". This sentence: In 1903 he and collaborators, the Heiminsha, started the Heimin Shimbun…." Would be better to say "he and a group of collaborators called the Heiminsha" for clarity. Could also be good to explain briefly what the Heiminsha (as a group) was. You call her autobiography "Half My Life" and "Half My Lifetime" at different times. "Joan of Arc" (not Ark).

Later Life section: "Established by Fukuda, who was also its chief editor, and Ishikawa…" would be better. But you also have a misplaced modifier in this sentence: the next work should not be "Hideko". I think I found a one of the places that made Shalor uncomfortable: remove "infamous" from the sentence about Article Five; also change "forbid" to "forbade". Later in the paragraph, the word should be "repeatedly." Your first sentence about Yanaka is awkwardly worded. In the next paragraph when you talk about government sensitivity to Fukuda's article in Seito, you may be oversimplifying the explanation. Check Bardsley again.

Might be good to break out the last sentences that start with her death into a new paragraph. Shalor is right that you can find a source for the quotation by googling it.

In your notes section, take off the all caps for the title of Ushioda's book. Also, check capitalization of other book/article titles.

Adam, you have done a lot of work on this, and including a very good array of sources. I know my list of suggestions is long, but it is because you have added so much. It is very good, and about to be even better. Elyssafaison (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)