User talk:NomadLife/sandbox

Response

I would like to begin by thanking Professor Faison, Lydia, Esmith (Brian?), and Shalor for their comments. I will now respond to the latter three.

Esmith: I will add her execution date to the introduction, this is a good suggestion and I believe it will make my opening stronger. I do intend on adding more to the Legacy section, but it has been proving a bit difficult to establish clear influences, memorials, literature, etc that derived from her specifically. While the anarchism, socialism, and feminism were prominent in Japan after her death, it is unclear what Kanno's exact influences on the aforementioned movements are.

Lydia: I intend to look over my writing and increase its professionalism. There are certain parts where the phrasing is awkward and/or contains bad grammar. I also intend to add further sources to the article, although the Oya work (and the others) was not actually cited in the article, some error occurred when I was moving the original article to my sandbox. The only articles I actively used was the Raddeker and Hane works. I was thinking about removing the other referenced sources if I can not confirm their contents/reliability or if it is not used within the article itself.

Shalor: I do intend on reviewing it for neutrality/bias, making sure I do not veer into speculative storytelling. As you pointed out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I will try to ensure my article adheres to the rules. I am thinking of removing the line you referenced (regarding Hide's death), but I thought it would reveal more of Kanno's psychological state. Though, I would agree, it is a bit speculative as we do not to what extent it really affected Kanno. I may reconsider just rewording it to something more factual.

Overall, I liked that Esmith, Lydia, and Shalor were both specific in their peer review. But, if you had to make me choose, I would say I most appreciated Lydia's critique of my bibliography, because I do think that is the most glaring discrepancy/flaw of my article.

I thought the peer review process was quite helpful and it will help drastically improve my article. NomadLife (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Lac Luong

Lac, this is an exellent start. You have added so much already, and I am delighted you have expanded the info box. We'll talk more in detail when we meet. Elyssafaison (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer review

Your lead is clear, and provides enough general information about the topic. Though I'm aware her execution date is marked on the Image box, consider adding it the intro paragraph also. Article structure appears to be chronological, well done. It was a good idea to keep her views in there own section of the article. You may want to add more to her legacy section if there is anything. Your article also appears to be neutral and your source appear to be well regarded. All things considered, I'd say your article is coming along well. Continue to add what you can to the article, well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmith71 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a good, solid article. The writing could be touched up a little to look more professional but there's nothing seriously wrong with it. It looks like you only have 4 individual sources, and the first one is confusing because it just says Oya, 1989, and the second doesn't have a link, unless it's the things in the bibliography, in which case I think you'd want to make them citations through Wikipedia's editor. You could also add more to the legacy section. Otherwise, it's a thorough article with a lot of really interesting information, and you did a great job!--Lydiacatfish (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! I wanted to give you some feedback. This looks good, however I have a slight concern. Some of the content needs to be tweaked to be a little more encyclopedic. Avoid things like "possibly due to", as that comes across as speculative and gives off the impression that it's a conclusion that you drew yourself - even if you're drawing from source material. Also be careful of overall tone, as you want to make sure that it doesn't read like an essay or a story that you're writing. Things like "Hide's death would go on to haunt Kanno" are well written from a story perspective, but on Wikipedia can come across as not encyclopedic enough and potentially a bit confusing to some readers who may take the word "haunt" to mean that she was haunted by an apparition. I learned this one the hard way, after I used the term "passed" to refer to a death. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Response to your Peer Review Response

Do especially take note of Shalor's comments. I think to some degree addressing her suggestions about "encyclopedic tone" will also end up helping you with Lydia's comment regarding "professional writing". You have done a lot of work on this already, and it shows. As you know, there are only a limited number of English-language secondary sources on Kanno, so be sure you have mined them for this project. Elyssafaison (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)