2020

Peer review response 1 - Hillmap

They suggested summarizing more about the environmental effects in the lead, expanding on the legal action section, and naming notable people related to the disease. I will be following all of these suggestions, as they provided good points on where new information can be added to the article. They also provided a source I can use to find more on survivors, which was greatly appreciated. The only thing they suggested that I will probably not do is combine the sections for the petrochemical plants. I have just found more information on each, and I think dividing the section that way is helpful for showing the history. Overall, their review was very helpful.

Kafkanaut 01:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review response 2 - Natalie

They suggested some great things about how to reword several sections to make information more clear. I will need to examine each suggestion on a case by case individual bases, but every suggestion I have read so far seems better than what was previously in the article. Like my other reviewer mentioned, I should add more information on the compensation of victims, and I will be looking for information and adding more to the article regarding that soon.

Kafkanaut 01:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello fellow students of Dr. Faison's awesome grad. class. I am writing this for the peer review/s that will be looking over my current sandbox. I know we are supposed to have a completed draft, and I think it's definitely close, but not entirely there yet. I'm still trying to get access to more sources (you'll notice the ICETT source is used a lot more than the rest). I think with a few suggestions and the time we have left that it will definitely be on its way. I'm dyslexic, so if you see any spelling issues, please help me out.

My main concerns with the article so far is the little information I have found on symptoms. There also seems to be some confusion with dates. This is hard to explain, but basically the original article mentions something like 'symptoms were reported in 19XX after the plants opening' and the date of the plants opening in a section before is like, before the date they mention symptoms supposedly appearing. It's been a pain because the reports I've read seem to have conflicting dates too, though that might just be because I misunderstand; some are pretty technical legal stuff.

Original article: Yokkaichi asthma

Kafkanaut 01:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Instructor review of Yokkaichi Asthma (as of April 19)

Sarah, you’ve done a great job expanding on what was a fairly slim article on Yokkaichi asthma. You have researched additional sources, and added image boxes as well. I have read your peer reviews and the responses to them, and am in agreement with both the reviews and your responses. In particular I think Matt’s suggestion of adding more info about the sufferers would be powerful. You might be able to use a specific example or two from Walker for that purpose. What follows is a line-edit based on the version that appears in your sandbox as of April 19. My one additional substantive comment would be that you get rid of the sub-sections in the “Legal Action” section. (See explanation below.) Great work so far!

In “Industry Background” section

• Inaba San’emon should not hyperlink to a non-existent article. I have doubts about whether Wikipedia editors would think he is an important enough figure to have his own entry.

• there is a sentence that says “from in” that need to be fixed.

• The oil refineries….WERE destroyed

“Petrochem Complex 1” section

• …government-issued Petrochem Industry Program….

• ….a JOINT project of…..

• Don’t hyperlink Showa Oil unless you are planning to create an entry for it

• Last sentence…. “the operation expanded ITS workday…”

• 24/7 is colloquial. Instead, use “twenty-four hours a day.”

“Petrochem Complex 2” section

• Break first sentence into two, with first ending with “10-year period.”

• Last sentence: “went online officially” instead of “officially online” “Asthma Symptoms”

• “indicated a 10- to 20-fold higher mortality rate….”

“Marine life”

• Might be helpful to readers to say “fishing industry is considered the first victim of Yokkaichi pollution.”

“Air Quality”

• Would be good to delineate a time period for this claim. When did these complaints start? Are they ongoing?

“Cause”

• Your image box about sulfer dioxide makes me wonder the difference between sulfer OXIDE (which is what you say caused Yokkaichi asthma in your lead section) and sulfer DIOXIDE (depicted in image box and referenced throughout this section). I suspect that my lack of chemical knowledge is in play here. If sulfer dioxide is merely part of a class of things called “sulfer oxides”, then I think I get it and you don’t need to change anything.

• Third paragraph, first sentence: “upon investigation of” and “as well as analyzing” are not parallel. Rework this sentence for clarity and structure.

• Middle of the third paragraph, “farther” should be “further”

• “A 2001 study” should refer to “researchers” (not “researches”)

• Should be “effects of SO2 and SO3 on humans”

• “lead” not “leaD’

“Legal action”

• I think you might be better off getting rid of the sub-headings under this section and leaving it as a series of paragraphs. Some of your individual sub-sections could even be combined into single paragraphs. It reads very choppy and disjoined with all these small sections. Making it one section would force you to give more connective tissue in the form of connecting/transition sentences.

• “noise from the factories and sickness caused by….”

• Remove link to Mihana Primary School. Again, I doubt very much that school would be considered important enough to have its own entry.

• Spring 1960 (lowercase “spring”) “Enviro poll control measures comm”

• Mortality rates

“Special survey”

• Smokestacks are physical thing; they cannot be “implemented”. Policies are implemented. Smokestacks are built.

• “did not alleviate the health issues” (remove “reported”)

1967 Lawsuit

• Should it be “in favor of the plaintiffs” and not “in favor of the patients”? “Compensation”

• “brought against….” Need to say whom.

Elyssafaison (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019

Hello Monday reviewers. I have just finished drafting my article for Tanno Setsu. There are a few problems I have already noticed with my article. Namely, I am uncertain of its organization. The headers are quite long, but I wasn't sure how to divide her life up easily. I would appreciate greatly any suggestions you can provide on how I might better be able to organize her life, as well as any other issues you see. You may see from my page that I also created articles for Tanino Setsu and Kawai Yoshitora as well. Those are not my main articles, just stubs I created for future students looking for an article, so please ignore them from your review. Kafkanaut 12:56, 16 February 2019

Kafkanaut (talk)Elyssafaison (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review -- Chase

Fantastically detailed article. My first observation was that there is plenty of information, but almost all of it is pulled from the same couple of sources. This was concerning, but as a fellow student working on writing an individual with limited biographical information, I understand it can be hard to find numerous sources.

Second, there is some noticeably lacking information that struck me as bizarre when compared to the wealth of information shown elsewhere. Specifically, the first sentence in the "Nankatsu Labor Union Women's department proposal" section is missing a date that I think should be there, but I assume this was just a formatting or typographical error. More pertinently, Tanno's biography sections stops abruptly when she is no longer in prison. Was she released? Did she die in prison? Did she escape? What happened afterward?

Finally, after a few reads, it's my opinion that the opening section contains a little too much information. Perhaps instead of giving these details in biographical (narrative?) form such as this:

"Tanno became a member of the Nankatsu Labor Union, and was especially interested in its communist Hyōgikai wing where she establish and was head of its women's division. She also joined the Enlightened People's Society, a communist study group, and Sekirankai, a socialist organization for Japanese women. Though many of her communist peers shifted to anarchist communist, Tanno and her husband, Watanabe Masanosuke, the Japanese Communist Party's general secretary, remained Bolshevist communists. "

It might be condensed to something along the lines of:

"Tanno was a member of the Hyōgikai wing of the Nakatsu Labor Union, as well as a member of the Enlightened People's Society and Sekirankai. Tanno remained a Bolshevist communist throughout her life."

Overall, I think the writing style is perfectly neutral and informative. The structure is clear, but could use some fine-tuning (condensing the introduction and continuing Tanno's life past 1938).

Chaseander (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer response to Chase

Hi Chase! Yeah, it has been really hard finding more information on her. I found one book that had 10 pages on her, which is where most of this comes from, but as for every other book I've found with her name, I'm lucky if there's a paragraph. I have recently found some new sources though, so hopefully that will add more detail to the places where I only have the one book cited.

I hadn't noticed the date problem; I will be updating that soon. As for her life after prison, I have found nothing following her capture. There's a sentence Dr. Faison found on a website suggesting she went on to improve hospital-patient quality, but I only recently discovered this. I will hopefully find more in the new sources I recently found of which has not been added to this yet.

I'm not sure about that; I was told the opening section should be more of a general summery. I'll check with the guides on Wikipedia and see. It would be more concise the way you suggest though.

Awesome, thanks for all your help!

Kafkanaut (talk) 08:00 AM, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Joel

Seeing as how your intro paragraph alone has more content and detail than the entire original article, good job. Something I did notice and wondered about was something that I saw Chase noticed as well and that was it seems that the intro and first few sections heavily pull from your first resource. Nevertheless, the information that you provide from it, is well worded and given in a clear non bias manner. I was left with a few questions at the end, not about anything in the prior writing but at the end it says she was imprisoned until 1939, and at the beginning of the article it states that she did not pass away until 1987. I was just wondering what happened in that time period in between those dates. Your revision on this article overall is very well done in my opinion. Brute55 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer response to Joel

Hello Chase, thanks for your kind words. I have been working on the issue with sources for the second half of her life with little avail. It seems as though she just disappeared off the map. I have recently tracked down some books in Japanese that may mention more about her. However, this is just speculation. I'm a little confused by your peer review, however. You seem to imply with "more content and detail than the entire original article" and "your revisions". I'm wondering if you read by note to reviewers; I have written the entire article. Either way, thank you for your pointers, I will be using your advice to search for more sources and clarify the end of Tanno's life.

Kafkanaut (talk) 08:24 AM, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments

First sentence “Arrival to Tokyo” should probably include Kawai’s given name. You might also think about a different section heading than “Arrival to Tokyo”. Rather than “arrival”, is there some other verb that might give a clear picture of her experiences when she first came to Tokyo? Also in that section, I think you mean Osugi Sakae (not Sasae), and you might link his Wikipedia article here. Last sentence of first paragraph of this section, what do you mean by “May Day performances”? Do you mean May Day demonstrations?

I agree with Chase’s suggestion about your lead section. If you cut out some of the detail from the lead, you can still use it here in the main body of the article (which you already do).

Nankatsu Labor Union section, you have some sentences that could use corrections/improvement in the third paragraph, and also the fourth. If you can’t find them or figure out what I am referring to, let’s look it over together in office hours.

Late 1920s section: you have an unfinished sentence early on. Late in that section you say she “contacted tuberculosis”: it should be “contracted”.

I agree with your peers that this is a huge contribution to this article. You have done a lot of really great work. I also agree with them that it appears to end rather abruptly. You and I have talked about the paucity of sources for the later period of her life, but I think we may have found at least some references to her postwar life that you could at the end here. Elyssafaison (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer response to Dr. Fiason

Hello Dr. Faison! Yes, I can see what you mean with the syntax corrections. I will be changing all of those later today. And, I will work on editing my lead section so that it is more concise. Thank you for noticing I trailed off on a sentence, and about the "contacted" thing. I'm dyslexic, and often do not catch my own wrong-word errors. And yes, I have post-capture information to add. I unfortunately did not get to it on the weekend, but will be editing it today.

Kafkanaut (talk) 08:37 AM, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments March 3

“Early Life” section, “she was a subscriber TO [not OF] the magazine Fujin Koron.” In the “Early activism” section, you still need to correct Osugi’s name to read “Osugi Sakae”: Osugi is his family name. End of this first paragraph you use the construction “She was also involved….” two sentences in a row. Second paragraph should be participating “further” (not “farther”). In the Nankatsu Labor union section, second paragraph, last word should be “latter” (not “later”). Third paragraph should be “attempted to persuade her family to let her return”. The sentence “Under the belief that a single member” needs to be rephrased. Second paragraph of Kanto Earthquake section: do we not know for sure how many members of the union were arrested? Do none of these three sources specify, or is there not a consensus among them? “Women’s Dept proposal” section needs corrections in a couple of places. I think you may have accidentally started saying “Nanshoku Labor Union” instead of “Nankatsu” in the “Late 1920s” section! In “Release” section, I’m pretty sure that the Japan Knowledge entry we looked at said that it was after the war that she turned to hospital administration and reform. That is different than “following her release” in 1938. If you are going to have a Personal Life section at the end, you probably need to mention her marriage here, and also whether or not she had children.

Please have another go at this, and then let’s look over it together. You’ve done great work so far, and you are close to being able to publish! Elyssafaison (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor comments March 7

Lead has a grammatical error: “establish” should be “established”. Also, “anarchist communist” should be “anarchist communism”. In the Nankatsu Labor Union Women’s department proposal section, seems to me that Women’s Department should have both words capitalized (in heading and in body). Also in that section, first reference to Women’s Department needs “a” in front of it. In your notes, there are some issues highlighted in red in reference 2 and reference 4. Also, is there some reason for the ALL CAPS in reference 12?

Once you have fixed these small issues you are ready to move your changes into the main space! Elyssafaison (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Enviro History instructor comment on Evaluating Lucky Dragon

Your evaluation of the Dai-go Fukuryu Maru entry is excellent. This might be a good article for you to work on for this class if you are so inclined. I'll be interested to hear how it feels to be doing these assignments and this entire Wikipedia Project as someone with prior experience. Elyssafaison (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]