User talk:RAM2018/sandbox

Well done! Good evaluation of the article Feminism in Japan. Elyssafaison (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

This was an absolutely fantastic article! A dramatic improvement over the original Yayori article. There's not much for me to say, but just some quick notes: Just remember to put in a picture later on. For the Biography section, if its possible, could there be more specifics on her early life and career? I'm not sure if the literature is out there though, so just curious. Excellent citations and linked articles. I would create a "See Also" section and put some related articles there to help guide future readers to other articles that generally concerns feminism, women's rights in Japan, etc.

NomadLife (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Lac Luong

I am thoroughly impressed with how much you've added to this article, and not only that, but you've done a great job being detail oriented with creating links back to other articles and improving the overall connectivity. If you're looking for more places to expand, you could give more information on the literary works section by giving brief summaries of each, if the information is out there. I also agree that a "See Also" section would be really helpful as well. There are plenty of links one could make to this article. Bart9311 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)bart9311

I really like how you expanded the article and focused on her biggest public accomplishment. The only thing I think you could improve is the tone of the article because at some points it sounds slightly opinionated. You have a fantastic set of sources and a good article, I just think you need some minor tweaks to make it perfect! Viperwing (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi! I wanted to give some feedback as well. I do have to echo concerns about the tone, as it comes across as very praising towards Yayori. Also, be very, very careful about how you phrase things such as "experienced revulsion at the blatant racism". When writing things like this, make sure that you are careful to attribute this to a specific person as it can otherwise be seen as the article (and therefore Wikipedia) taking a specific stance or adopting a specific viewpoint on something. While I don't doubt that she saw and experienced racism (the time period was rife with it), someone could argue that this was her perception of things. A good way to resolve issues with this is to re-write the article and attribute it to a specific source/person:

Matsui was introduced to the feminist movement while on a trip to the United States and Europe during her junior year in college. In their work Gender in Modern East Asia, Barbara Molony, Janet Theiss, and Hyaeweol Choi state that during this trip Matsui experienced revulsion at the blatant racism she encountered there and surprise over the disparity in wealth and equality between these regions and Asia."

This gets the same point across but attributes it to specific people. As long as they explicitly make this statement in the book itself, there shouldn't be an issue.

Also be careful of quotation marks. I noted that in one sentence you used these in a way that could be seen as WP:SCAREQUOTES, meaning that it looks like you are emphasizing the words rather than making a direct quote. A good way to rephrase this would be something like this:

She criticized feminism in the United States as being exclusionary and only extending its benefits towards specific groups and individuals. Matsui stated that she was "suspicious about the American model of empowerment, which means the right to grasp for power just as men do.”

This gets it across a bit more directly and also includes a nice quote from Matsui that was included in the source material. (I have access to this book. :) )

I hope this helps - feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page that you may have! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Responses

1. The most helpful comments I received have, really, been all of them. I like the suggestion by Lac to add a "See Also" section as that could help people see related Wikipedia articles (Reid also agreed with this suggestion). There are plenty of articles I could link to from Wikipedia in that section. I also liked the idea about adding a picture; I had a picture in the info box originally but it was removed as I guess we aren't allowed to put non-free content pictures in our sandboxes??? I am a bit confused about that, to be honest, but from what I have gathered it is alright that the image is in the article but not that it is my sandbox. But I do agree that the article needs that picture that is in the original article. Also, I agree with Shalor and Brian that the article at times seems opinionated; Shalor's suggestions on how to fix that by adding in where the information comes from so that it is obvious that these are the opinions expressed by others and not myself are really useful and I plan to change those sections as suggested before moving the article over to Wikipedia. I also plan to add a bit more information on Matsui's works, maybe a couple sentences briefly summarizing what the works are about, like Reid suggested. All of these suggestions are really useful as they are doable and will make the article more neutral, more clear, and more informative - so, basically a better article overall.

2. Unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to find much more information about Matsui's early life and career (Lac's suggestion), which I had previously wanted to do before realizing that the only source I could use for such information would be her own (I believe unfinished) autobiography, which would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. I might be able to find some responses to her work as a journalist, but I haven't found much yet so I am not sure how much more I can find, as far as secondary sources go, on her life at Asahi Shimbun. Sadly, there isn't much information on her early life in secondary sources and very little on her work at Asahi - mainly sources focus on her work in various organizations and on her social activism. Also, as stated previously, I can't have the photo I plan to keep in the article in my sandbox so that will have to be left out until I move everything over to Wikipedia.

3. As stated in #1 I plan to add a "See Also" section and to add some information about Matsui's most famous works. I will have the picture in the final article and I will also reword the opinionated parts, being careful to put in where these opinions come from so that it will be obvious that these are not my opinions but rather the opinions of the authors of my chosen sources. I will try to find a bit more information about Matsui's career at Asahi, but can't make promises that I will find anything more than I already have. Unfortunately, lots of the secondary sources I found on Matsui say the same things over and over, although there are several that have significantly more information on her than the others. It is just a matter of making sure I have exhausted all valuable sources on her life and work.

4. I really like the fact that we did peer reviews. It is always helpful to have someone else's opinion on your writing as often we can't see all of the problems with our own writing. Also, all of the reviewers brought up really good and doable suggestions on improving the article, which is nice because I would love to fix as many problems with the article as possible before I move it to Wikipedia for the whole world to see! Also, reviewing others' articles made me look at mine differently, more critically. Overall, I really think the peer review experience was/is valuable for making our articles better (adding clarity, fixing grammatical mistakes, adding more information, etc.).

RAM2018 (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC) (Rebecca)

Instructor Response to your Peer Review Response

You have done a great job addressing the peer reviews. I wrote to Shalor to thank you for the great feedback she gave to all of you, but I think her comments to you here were especially spot on. I am in agreement with you on the things you think you will/must do, and the things that may be impossible due to a lack of sources. With the improvements you will make, this will be an exceptionally strong article, and one that I am sure many, many people will benefit from having available on Wikipedia. I am glad to know you found the peer review process helpful. Elyssafaison (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)