User talk:Jamespgj/sandbox
Cleaning up citations
[edit]Hey James. I deleted out the old citations that didn't seem to be linked to this current version of the article. If that was a mistake, we can revert the change.
I also reached out to Elysia from WikiEdu to ask if there was any way to consolidate the multiple citations to different pages within a book. Hopefully she'll jump in here to help.
Kirwanfan (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi James! Here is my peer review! I think I did this in the wrong place initially, so I'm putting it here now.Historyfan323 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
Jamespgi
Link to draft you're reviewing:
User:Jamespgj/sandbox
Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
It does not appear to have been updated, and it does not appear in the relevant sandbox.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Yes.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Not quite. It does talk about the crew's medical symptoms and treatment, but does not mention their health history, the role of the Japanese media, or the ship post-contamination.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
No.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The lead is concise while also including most of what it should.
Lead evaluation
There is no lead in the sandbox draft, so I was working off of the lead for the original article. The lead as is works fairly well--it has a good introductory sentence, the brief description part talks about most of the article's major sections, and it does not include any superfluous information. I think it could use a little bit of editing (see third guiding question), but other than that, it is good.
Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Yes.
Is the content added up-to-date?
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
The first section of the original article, "Early days and final voyage" is missing from the sandbox draft, and some background information on the ship prior to the Bravo test would be important to include in the article.
Content evaluation
The sections that were very short/almost entirely absent from the original article are significantly more filled out/detailed in this draft version. Overall, I think detail was added where it was needed, and the sections that needed to be substantially added to were substantially added to.
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral?
As far as I can tell, yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
There are multiple viewpoints present in the article-especially regarding the circumstances by which the ship ended up being exposed to the Bravo test radiation, but they are all given equal representation.
Does the content added to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
No. When I read the added content, I did not get the impression that it was an attempt to persuade me in favor of any particular position.
Tone and balance evaluation
While there are certainly points where it would be easy for things to come out as biased in one direction or another (example- "Events after return to Yaizu port" subsection), the content remained neutral. Where there are multiple, disagreeing opinions involved in the content, they are balanced so that one is not given more value than the other. In general, the new content is neutral in opinion and the multiple viewpoints are well-balanced.
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
Is all-new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
It might just be a question of my not being able to figure it out, but I'm having a hard time telling which notes and references match which footnotes. Some of the footnotes appear to link to references that aren't there. However, where I can connect notes/references to footnotes, the sources are reliable.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Since this is far from the type of history I normally do, I'm not sure.
Are the sources current?
It seems like most of the sources come from the last two decades, and many from the last decade, so yes.
Check a few links. Do they work?
It seems like most of the source links from the original article didn't quite transfer over, but they work in the original. In terms of new source links, they work. I also tried a couple of links within the article, and they all worked.
Sources and references evaluation
Problems (probably on my end) regarding matching notes/references and footnotes aside, the ones that I could figure out are reliable, current sources with working links. One of the books, The Day the Sun Rose in the West, is a memoir, which would be problematic, but it also includes a great deal of other material that backs up what is said in the memoir part.
Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes. The content is detailed, but also clear and fairly easy to read without getting too confused.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
There is a reference at the end of the "health history of crew" subsection to Oishi's book where the title is listed incorrectly--it should be The Day The Sun Rose in The West: Bikini, The Lucky Dragon, and I (the word Bikini is missing in the article draft). There are also a couple of occasions where dates are given, but without years, where the years would be helpful in keeping the timeline straight. Apart from these instances, there are no other noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes.
Organization evaluation
Generally speaking, the new content is well-written and well-organized, aside from a couple of instances already mentioned. There is also a sentence at the very beginning of the "Events surrounding March 1, 1954" section which feels like it doesn't flow with the rest of the section. However, the new content is well-written, well-organized, and flows relatively well.
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
N/A (no images/media added as far as I can tell)
Are images well-captioned?
N/A
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
N/A
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
N/A/
Images and media evaluation
Since they didn't add any images or media (as far as I can tell), there isn't really anything to evaluate.
For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
Yes. Previously, a couple of the sections of the article were almost completely blank, and now they are well-filled-out. The article is considerably more complete now than it was originally.
What are the strengths of the content added?
The new content fills in a lot of important aspects of the topic that were previously more or less left out. It is detailed without being overly confusing and adds to the article without being biased in one direction or the other. The new content is also backed up by sound secondary sources.
How can the content added be improved?
There are a couple of small spots (mentioned previously). I also think the lead could be edited a bit to include material about all of the article's major sections (particularly those which were previously almost non-existent).
Overall evaluation
Overall, the new content substantially improves the article. It fills in spaces that were previously almost non-existent, and does so using reliable secondary sources with working links. Also, the wording is clear and relatively easy to understand, but also includes the necessary details to tell the story of the subject. There are a couple of places where something isn't entirely correctly listed, a couple of dates are missing years, and there's a sentence at the beginning of one section that doesn't quite flow with the rest, but these could be easily fixed. The lead does not appear in the article draft either, but it could use a little editing.
Apart from these minor issues, the article with the new content is a substantial improvement over the original.
Hello Hello!
Here is the second evaluation for your consideration!
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Jamespgi Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jamespgj/sandbox Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes in his sandbox Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it is included Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead tackles filling in specific areas of the article but doesn’t give a summary of the article contents overall.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not to my knowledge
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead adds only what is necessary to the specified areas
Lead evaluation The lead information has some need for citation support but otherwise is well set up.
Content Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is relevant and recent. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is room for expansion on the days leading up to the event and some of the critical human errors made aboard the vessel leading to disaster later.
Content evaluation The sections that lacked descriptors have been filled in nicely, there is some area for refinement but considerably more comprehensive after the edited draft.
Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are only viewpoints related to specific researchers/medical personnel so it is appropriate.
Does the content added to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not persuade in either direction, just informs the reader.
Tone and balance evaluation The additions are placed in a way that maintains neutrality. There are no biased claims or political assertions.
Sources and References Is all-new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is room for improvement concerning citations. There are a lot of placeholders that can use sources to strengthen the article. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Unsure Are the sources current? There is a large gap between source years, recommend a few more recent ones… Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work. Sources and references evaluation There is room for improvement in the citations section, many placeholders and a large gap in the years referenced. Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easily navigable and informative, very easy to read. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is a need for adding years to listed dates, also Oishi’s piece is a memoir, not a book. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. Organization evaluation The organization is chronological and easy to follow, overall great organization!
Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has a depth it did not have before. There is substantially more information that before the draft was created. What are the strengths of the content added? The new content adds layers to the event outside of a timetable of the voyage and victims. He places the event in modern Japanese life. There is much more substance and clarity in the new content. How can the content added be improved? Add more citations as placeholders indicate and look for more recent citations to add to the piece.
Overall evaluation The content added brings more credibility and expertise to the article. It adds a more comprehensive and descriptive nature to the original piece. Overall, great additions and changes to the piece!
Instructor comments 2020
[edit]James, I don’t think it’s a good idea to pull out the caption from the contour map image and add it to the text. The text read better without it being in that place, and it appears to be quite effective as part of the map. What needs to be worked on, however, is the citation additions to this first “March 1” section. I would think you might be able to use Oishi’s book as a source for much of this. See also the sources Matt Hill was using for his Oishi article. [NOTE: looks like this happens in next section too, which leads me to believe that this is just a glitch from when you cut and pasted the original article into your sandbox; in other words, you have not done any work or made any changes on this section yet.]
For the March 2-14 section, I would think you should be able to expand it even further. Check for proofing mistakes (“eyes” instead of eye).
“Events after return to Yaizu” Looks like you have added two sentences at end of this section. You might consider reworking the structure of the article. The sections on March events and then return to Yaizu appear to be chronological, but then there is a lot of stuff in the Return to Yaizu section that goes way beyond the immediate return of the boat to port in 1954. You might consider moving that stuff into a different section and breaking it up in a way that makes more sense.
“Medical symptoms and treatment” Actually, this entire section appears to make sense under the heading “Events after return to Yaizu”. You are really going to have to think through the organization of these sections, and the naming of the sections.
“Health history of the crew” I know that this was in the original, but I have trouble with the phrase “irrational fear of those exposed to radiation.” People did not have enough information to know how radiation worked on human bodies, so it is a stretch to call their fears “irrational”. Looks like you dropped one of the sources for this section (Aya Homei). Why? You have few sources in this article as it is, and this is a pretty good one. If you are going to mention Oishi’s book in the body of the article, you should describe it. Say what he talks about or what he argues in this book.
“Radioactivity of the ship” You’ve fleshed this out nicely, but it needs more sources. Pretty much everything you have added to this article comes straight from Oishi. That is a good source, but you need more. Have you checked japanfocus.org? Japan Times? What research have you done so far?
“Media” Since the Daigo Fukuryumaru Exhibition Hall is referenced, a link to its website should be incuded. You can add it in a new section called “external sources.”
Elyssafaison (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Instructor comments 2020: Second Round
[edit]James, this is much improved. I’m sending you a book chapter PDF via email that should help with one part (mentioned below). Your re-organization of sections works well. Now need to do a heavy proof-read and take care of the remaining issues noted below:
First paragraph in sandbox: Decide if you are going to call the boat Daigo Fukuryu Maru or Lucky dragon No. 5. Don’t switch back and forth. If you go with Daigo Fukuryu Maru, you can say Lucky Dragon No. 5 parenthetically at first mention. Last sentence of first pargraph has an extra word.
Still need to decide if you are using Japanese name order or western order. Be consistent throughout article. Here would be proper renderings of names in Japanese name order: Oishi Matashichi Oi Toshioacki Nishiwaki Yasushi Kuboyama Aikichi (not “Aichi”) Morita Hisao Susumu Misaki
“Events after return to Yaizu” In the following sentence, “They were subjected to daily examinations and blood samples from all over their bodies,” I doubt the blood samples were taken from all over their bodies. Rewrite for clarity. “The men were prescribed bed rest” (no “to” in this sentence). At end of this section talking about Kuboyama, replace “pass away” (colloquial euphemism) with “die”. Last sentence, “They received….”
“Health history” First paragraph, “the crew did not receive that status….” What status are you talking about? Rewrite for clarity. Regarding Kawashima, “.Issues in his personal life led to a divorce.” Period. Last paragraph on Oishi, “Oishi, who reported having licked…..” Why would you report that he was 79 years old in 2013? Does 2013 have a special significance? The stillborn was “commonly believed to be due to his radiation exposure….” Commonly believed by whom? By Oishi himself? Say that.
“Responsibility and remembrance” First sentence is a run-on. When you say Lewis Strauss issued denials, be clear: denials about what? You need a citation for this Strauss stuff, probably at the end of this paragraph. Regarding the emergence of the anti-nuclear movement, see the Orr chapter I will email you for a citation and possible expansion. “Tuna epitaph” (not “Tune”).