User talk:Natezurko/sandbox

Peer Review: Lead

You've done a lot here; I can see from the original article. I like the expanded lead section. It does a lot to explain her importance. The structure is a little odd, however. The first parenthesis is rather confusing--I can't tell whether the first or second set of kana is the historical one (I also think both set of kana should be between parentheses). The first sentence is also rather dense--the list of "writer, journalist, political activist, etc." is long, and the last three entries are somewhat redundant with "political activist" and might work better in a sentence of their own. There are also bits of information that are separate that I think belong together. The sentence about her Taisho and Showa activism should probably go before the sentence about her post-war activism, or at least in the same paragraph. The sentence about the Raicho Hiratsuka Prize might belong with the sentence about her magazine's impact on feminism, since they're both about her ongoing legacy. Lastly, the third paragraph needs a citation if possible. It seems like a big claim to not have a citation. I would also use fewer gerunds, as it's a little confusing who the subjects are (my natural reading was that Article 5 allowed women to participate politically, and I was confused as to why Raicho would overthrow it). Patrickortez (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Structure

The structure of this article is pretty good. I feel that the Postwar section should be moved above the Feminist Perspective section, as it is slightly more biographical. The Seito, New Women's Association, and Postwar sections could then all be put under a larger Activism section, separating the biography and her accomplishments from the explanations of her views. Otherwise, I think the structure make s a lot of sense. Patrickortez (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Balance

The article is fairly balanced. Obviously the feminist perspectives section hasn't been finished. I know from our class readings that the New Women's Association section could probably get a little more detail. The Postwar section has a lot of information, but not all of it is explained in full (e.g. why did Raicho found the New Japanese Women's Association? What were her goals?). Some of that information might not be easily available, but that's where I felt the article sagged. Patrickortez (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Neutrality

This article looks very neutral. No claims struck me as biased or making any particular argument. It's purely informative. Patrickortez (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Sources

The source look pretty reliable. I can't read several of them, but the Japan Times source looks like the only non-academic source, and it's not relied on heavily. Overall, I think the article needs more in-line citations. The NWA, Postwar, and Legacy sections have practically no in-line citations, and the Seito section could use a few more as well. I know some of it comes from the original article, but it's a problem when entire sections are un-cited. I can't tell where a lot of the information comes from. Patrickortez (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Other

The article has a fair number of typos: inconsistent italicization chief among them. Patrickortez (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate to refer to Raicho by her last name throughout the article. Patrickortez (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer review

The lead section is informative and thorough, and by far an improvement from the original. The structure has also been greatly improved, and I find it to be reasonable and easy to follow. My only concern on the structure is the “Feminist Perspective” section. I believe it is in a reasonable place, though without any information it is a bit more difficult to place.

The article appears reasonably balanced at the beginning, though the “Legacy” and “Postwar” sections seem quite short in comparison to the other topics. Despite their length, they do provide a good summary for each topic. The “Postwar” section does strike me as something that could possibly have a bit more elaboration, though what is there is understandable and informative.

Everything in the article seemed neutral to me and most of the sources seemed appropriate. I was unable to determine the validity of the Japanese sources, though they appear to be fine. My main concern is your reference to Japan Times (the eighth source), which is the only one that seems like it may pose any problems from what I see.

There were a few other mistakes that I noticed right off in your article as well. There is a typo in the second sentence of the “Early Life” section. “Educated” in this section should be “education.” The third sentence of the same section should also say “whose” instead of “who’s.” The fourth sentence of that section is a fragment and should be attached to the previous sentence.

There is also some inconsistency with her name. Raichō appears beneath the picture and in the “Seitō” section, though Hiratsuka appears to be used throughout the rest of the article.

In the last line in the section on the New Women’s Association, “in that it saw her aligned herself…” sounds confusing. There is also no citation at the end of this section, so where the information came from is unclear. The last section also lacks any citation at all.

Over all I think your article is well-structured, relatively easy to read, and a nice improvement to the original article. My topic is the New Women’s Association, so I found your section about that particularly interesting and potentially of some use to my article additions as well!

--Rums00 (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review – Jasmaine

Nice lead. It’s easy to follow and accurately formatted. You provided a good amount of detail, without going overboard. Your article appears neutral and your sources seem solid. You’ve done good work so far. I have a couple of critiques, the first being (minor) grammatical errors. Simple example… there should be a comma between period and Hiratsuka in the sentence, ”During the post-war period, Hiratsuka...” Second, minor edits to your paraphrasing would allow your work to flow much smoother. As another peer reviewer has already mentioned, the first sentence of your article is rather dense and should be simplified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzmusiek (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments

Second paragraph of lead, you might want to use the word “achieve” rather than “acquire”, and “founding” rather than “formation”. I’m also not sure that “symbol” is the best word choice to describe the first lines of the journal Seito. In the third paragraph, consider using “overturning” rather than “overthrowing”.

In “Early Life”, change name order of “Haru Hiratsuka” (since Hiratsuka is family name). The sentence that begins “As well as the individualistic heroine” is not a complete sentence.

“Seito” section: do you mean to italicize the entire journal title? (Only the last letter is currently italicized.) The first sentence of the second paragraph, which you have left intact from the original article, needs some rewording: in “stories of their love affairs” it is not clear whose love affairs we are talking about. The journal editors?

“New Women’s Association” section: I like that you made this its own section. This section needs citations. You may find things to cite related to this section in the Kano book we have been reading in class. You may end up deciding to reword some of this section if you do find sources to cite that talk about these issues.

I like the sections you have added under “Feminist Perspective” and look forward to seeing how you flesh them out.

In the postwar section there is something weird from the original that you might want to correct. It says Hiratsuka went to the US with “Nogami Yaeko and three other members of the Japan Women’s Movement (婦人運動家)”. This sentence makes it sound like the Japan Women’s Movement is an organization, which it is not. I think you can fix this by simply saying “three other members of Japan’s women’s movement” or “the Japanese women’s movement.”

I think you could flesh out the Legacy section, and add citations.

The Sources section needs some work, or maybe needs to be eliminated. I don’t the source listed there for Sumiko Otsubo is correct. It is listed as though it is a monograph, but I don’t believe Otsubo has written a monograph. It is probably an essay in an edited volume, in which case it needs a more complete bibliographic reference.

Overall you have made a start here that looks promising, but there is a lot more you can do. As you continue to add content, be careful with your word choice. Your peers’ reviews of your work above have been quite thorough: please consider their suggestions seriously. Elyssafaison (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)