Wikipedia:Peer review/Hiroshima Maidens/archive1

Hiroshima Maidens

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like people's thoughts on two sections:

The "Interpreations and criticism" section
The "List" section

Specifically, I want to know if people think that these constitute WP:OR.

Thanks, Spookyaki (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Interpretations and criticism section:

I don't think we need to be naming the title of each book and paper in the prose, when those are already what we are citing. It's a little excessive, especially given how long some of the titles are. Just the author's name should be enough for in-text attribution.
Some of these quotations are quite long and could probably be rewritten and condensed into summary style.

On the List section:

It's probably going to be an issue that 15 of these entries have citations, but 10 others are uncited. If you can find citations to verify the currently un-cited entries, that would go a long way. I think this is the main thing that could skirt OR.
Using divided columns might be nicer to read than a single column of 25 names.
Are any of these individual women notable enough to one day receive their own article? If so, it might be worth red-linking them. (Or if they already have articles on the Japanese Wikipedia, an interlanguage link could be useful)

Overall though, this article is looking really good! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! Incorporated it into the article. Initially, I did not include citations for the names of Maidens who were mentioned in cited portions elsewhere in the article, but I went ahead and added citations for all of them. In terms of independent notability—I don't think so? Unfortunately, my facility with kanji is not good enough to easily search for their names in Japanese, but outside of coverage on the Maidens, there isn't a lot of English-language source material on them. Spookyaki (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki: I agree with Grnrchst on those points. Article looks good! As an aside, I notice that the CBC Archives external link seems to have issues (my browser tells me there's an issue with the old site's security certificate), so you may wish to replace it with this updated archive link, which I think leads to the same 1957 radio clip. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for pointing that out! Fixed. Spookyaki (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]