Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manzanar/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC) [1].

Manzanar

[edit]
Notified: Gmatsuda, ToeFungii, WP:NRP, WP California, WP History, WP Protected areas, WP Historic sites, WP Museums, WP Milhist, WP Japan, talk page 2020-02-28

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 promotion is well out of compliance; lots of uncited text, short stubby paragraphs, and see talk page notification from 02-28. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur, it would take a bunch of work to get this back to FA status. In addition, the refs are not consistently formatted and second tier sources, such as websites (as opposed to scholarly sources) are used heavily so I believe this also fails 1c and 2c. buidhe 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please make a specific list of problems, SandyGeorgia? Just glancing through the article, I'm seeing little in the way of the "short stubby paragraphs" mentioned. Please also tag any paragraphs that are missing references/sources with {{cn}} to make them easier to find. As for websites being used instead of scholarly sources, that's not a valid reason for delisting it. There are many very reliable websites out there. If you have a problem with specific websites being used, please make a specific list of those so that they can be adequately reviewed. The consistent formatting of refs is something you can fix yourself without too much trouble, Buidhe, and it would be very much appreciated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FA criteria require the article to be "well researched" and "comprehensive". These cannot be satisfied unless the article is based on the most reliable sources available. Academic books and peer-reviewed articles are always going to be better sources than the Manzanar Committee (extensively cited), to start with. buidhe 07:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Nihonjoe; I will add a list below. I see others have added some cns. (If someone brings the article otherwise to standard, I am happy to fix citation formatting.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG review
  • External links and Further reading are concerning; they are huge. A Featured article should already be comprehensive, so that little other reading is needed. I can see that some of them are photos (eg Ansel Adams), but an examination of how many of those links are needed-- and why they aren't used as sources-- is needed.
  • Sam problem with See also; it's pretty clear a lot of those don't belong there (eg Ansel Adams-- if he does, he should be mentioned in article).
  • In popular culture is listy and could be better organized to parapraphs.
  • Notable people could be paras rather than bullets, and one wonders if Ueno is notable, why they aren't redlinked.
  • The two-sentence para on vegetation planted in 2008 could be better worked in somewhere (that section suffers from proseline).
  • American Muslim stubby para added after promotion-- is this still true, or was this a NEWSY not-news one-time thing?
  • As of 2007 sentence needs review towards updating.
  • The Township section is stubby and needs better paragraphs.
  • Use of the word "today" throughout ... needs prose adjustment or "as of".

This looks saveable, but the extensive lists at the bottom of the article will require a lot of sifting and reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nihonjoe I am having a look now (so sorry for the delay). I have removed your "fixed" templates from my post for two reasons: first, they are discouraged at FAC and FAR because those kinds of transclusions cause FAC to pass template limits, and second, because they alter my post-- I'll go through and check for all. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

In addition to those listed in the further reading section, the following sources may be helpful in improving the sourcing of the article: buidhe 22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Burton, Jeffery F.; Farrell, Mary M. (2013). ""Life in Manzanar Where There Is a Spring Breeze": Graffiti at a World War II Japanese American Internment Camp". Prisoners of War: Archaeology, Memory, and Heritage of 19th- and 20th-Century Mass Internment. Springer. pp. 239–269. ISBN 978-1-4614-4166-3.
  • Colborn-Roxworthy, Emily (2007). ""Manzanar, the Eyes of the World Are upon You": Performance and Archival Ambivalence at a Japanese American Internment Camp". Theatre Journal. 59 (2): 189–214. ISSN 0192-2882.
  • HAYASHI, ROBERT T. (November 2003). "Transfigured Patterns: Contesting Memories at the Manzanar National Historic Site". The Public Historian. 25 (4): 51–71. doi:10.1525/tph.2003.25.4.51.
  • Ohrn, Karen Becker (31 July 2019). "What You See Is What You Get: Dorothea Lange and Ansel Adams at Manzanar". Journalism History. 4 (1): 14–32. doi:10.1080/00947679.1977.12066836.
  • Hansen, Authur A.; Hacker, David A. (13 February 2019). "The Manzanar Riot: An Ethnic Perspective". Amerasia Journal. 2 (2): 112–157. doi:10.17953/amer.2.2.1kl24477mkk70q51.
  • Kurashige, Lon (1 August 2001). "Resistance, Collaboration, and Manzanar Protest". Pacific Historical Review. 70 (3): 387–417. doi:10.1525/phr.2001.70.3.387.
  • Ladino, Jennifer K. (1 January 2015). "Mountains, Monuments, and other Matter: Environmental Affects at Manzanar". Environmental Humanities. 6 (1): 131–157. doi:10.1215/22011919-3615925.
  • HAYS, FRANK (November 2003). "The National Park Service: Groveling Sycophant or Social Conscience: Telling the Story of Mountains, Valley, and Barbed Wire at Manzanar National Historic Site". The Public Historian. 25 (4): 73–80. doi:10.1525/tph.2003.25.4.73.
  • Beckwith, Ronald J. (2013). "Japanese-Style Ornamental Community Gardens at Manzanar Relocation Center". Prisoners of War: Archaeology, Memory, and Heritage of 19th- and 20th-Century Mass Internment. Springer. pp. 271–284. ISBN 978-1-4614-4166-3.
  • Thy Phu (2008). "The Spaces of Human Confinement: Manzanar Photography and Landscape Ideology". Journal of Asian American Studies. 11 (3): 337–371. doi:10.1353/jaas.0.0020.
  • Smocovitis, Vassiliki Betty (February 2011). "Genetics Behind Barbed Wire: Masuo Kodani, Émigré Geneticists, and Wartime Genetics Research at Manzanar Relocation Center". Genetics. 187 (2): 357–366. doi:10.1534/genetics.110.126128.
  • Parks, Kimberley Roberts (January 2004). "Revisiting Manzanar: A history of Japanese American internment camps as presented in selected federal government documents 1941–2002". Journal of Government Information. 30 (5–6): 575–593. doi:10.1016/j.jgi.2004.10.003.
  • McStotts, Jennifer Cohoon (May 2007). "Internment in the Desert: A Critical Review of Manzanar National Historic Site". International Journal of Heritage Studies. 13 (3): 281–287. doi:10.1080/13527250701228239.
  • Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).

On closer examination, it appears that the article is not comprehensive either. The above sources would support a section about cultural life in the camp, at the very least. buidhe 23:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to these sources? If so, are you willing to create and populate the section you suggested? With all the COVID-19 restrictions in place, I don't have a way to use the university libraries I would normally have access to, and I don't have the $$$$ to buy all of these books. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the journal articles are open access. I could email you pdfs of most of the rest if you wikimail me. Someone at WP:RX probably has access to the Springer chapters. buidhe 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sent several articles. buidhe 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Structure

The notable people section seems a bit of a WP:COATRACK. That is, they appear to be covered in sources about the person, not about the camp. I am unable to find any quality article about a camp that follows this structure; to me, it would be much better to split off into List of inmates of Manzanar or equivalent, and integrate the notable people in text when discussing what they did at the camp or afterwards that makes them notable in connection to the camp. buidhe 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you created the list, so I tweaked a couple things on it and added projects on the talk page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG second review

Second review by Buidhe

[edit]
  • Sourcing still needs improvement.
    • We still have more than 20 references to Manzanar Committee, which should be replaced by reliable secondary sources.
    • The "Preservation and remembrance" section is mostly sourced to primary sources, advocacy groups, and news articles. We should improve the sourcing by replacing with cites to scholarly sources.
    • "Terminology" seems to be a political debate, mostly sourced to news articles and advocacy groups. We should look at scholarly souces to see the terms used there and/or their perspective on the terminology disagreement.
    • The sentence "Manzanar has been referred to as a "War Relocation Center," "relocation camp," "relocation center," "internment camp," and "concentration camp"." needs to be clarified as to which sources are referring to it as which term. Ideally, it should be sourced to a secondary source discussing the terminology.
    • I have flagged some individual sources where I saw issues.
  • I am concerned about coatracking in the "Before World War II" section. If the article is about the WWII internment camp, then background should be mostly restricted to what RS on the WWII internment camps have as relevant background, and much of the material should be moved to Manzanar, California. Per WP:OR, we should rely only on "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". It is especially suspicious to cite sources published before WWII.
  • I also do not believe the article is comprehensive; there is only 27kb readable prose and a lot of that is about events before/after the war. The sources above would support significant expansion of the "wartime" section, with more info about everyday life, culture, etc. buidhe 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few thoughts:
      • I don't see any reason to replace the Manzanar Committee references as long as they are providing facts. Please explain why you seem to think they are worthless as a source.
      • I can see losing most or all of the Before WWI section.
      • I find your use of "suspicious" to be ridiculous as it implies someone is trying to trick the reader. I don't see that at all in the article, and I wasn't the one who originally wrote it.
      • As for events after the war, since the work to make it a monument obviously happened after the war, of course there will be information from that time period.
      • I agree that more can be included about everyday life, but you seem to be very averse to sources like the Manzanar Committee, which is likely the only kind of source that you'll find about everyday life in the camp.
      • I'd love it if someone other than me could do more of the heavy lifting with rewriting and improving. Finding things that could be improved is relatively easy compared to expanding the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Featured articles are supposed to be based on the most reliable sources, which ensures that we are presenting factually correct information and with NPOV. I am not sure whether Manzanar Committee is reliable for facts, but they are certainly an advocacy group that prioritizes activism over scholarship. That's fine but it does limit their usefulness as a source.
  2. I didn't mean that the person who added the reference was not acting in good faith, I just meant that it is a clear example of coatracking given the current article scope and poor use of references.
  3. Currently there are just four short paragraphs about "Life in camp". I'm pretty sure there's more information just in the sources listed above. Also Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Further reading has a list of many reliable books that probably cover Manzanar in some parts. This book, for instance, has very significant coverage of Manzanar, and it has the advantage of being fairly recent and by a high quality publisher.[1] I can send you chapter 4 "The Camp Experience" (pp. 154-202), which seems to be the most relevant. Its section on the riot is very pertinent and includes differing views on whether the rioting was caused by support for Japan.
  4. Right now I am quite busy with a bunch of other things to do, unfortunately. buidhe 21:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robinson, Greg (2009). A Tragedy of Democracy: Japanese Confinement in North America. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-52012-6.
  • Close without FARC, I am satisfied, I disagree that we can't use the Committee for some sourcing, and if there are specific items that are dubious or promotional from the Committee, they should be listed. This is good enough for a Keep for me-- not the best article ever, but good enough. @Nihonjoe and Buidhe: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately I cannot support that action at this time. I took another look at the article and removed some content that seemed to be undue weight or was not about Manzanar. More worryingly, in the one reference I checked, I found failed verification content. Neither source cited says that Lange's photographs were archived because they were "critical", indeed how can a photograph criticize anything? And they do not state that her photographs *of Manzanar* were archived. I could live with the Manzanar Committee as a ref occasionally but the postwar section really should be sourced to the several high quality secondary sources available on the subject. I appreciate all the work that has gone into improving the article (and it really has improved a lot!), but I do not consider it well-researched at this time according to the FA criteria: "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Buidhe: You already removed everything you objected to, so what, exactly, are you objecting to now? And what needs to be added for it to be as "thorough and representative" as you imagine in your mind? You can't go complaining about the lack of comprehensiveness without spelling out exactly what the perceived problems are. Please be more specific. Very specific. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was perfectly clear, the postwar section needs to be sourced to high-quality, reliable secondary sources on the subject, currently many of the refs are non-independent (either US government sources or the Manzanar Committe, which is heavily involved). There is no lack of such sources and they are listed above, so I won't repeat myself. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Out of the 53 refs currently in the Closure and Preservation and remembrance sections, only 10 are specifically to the Manzanar Committee, and an additional 1 is to the Densho site, which might be considered too close by someone interpreting policies very narrowly. Even if the Densho ref is counted as the same as the Manzanar Committee refs, that's only about 21% of the refs used in that section. As for the US Government sources, they are pretty much all National Parks Service or referencing bills related to the topic, so those are very reliable and unlikely to be significantly biased. You seem to be in the minority here in refusing to allow these kinds of refs. The only time third party references are required is when establishing notability or if there's some controversial detail and a source is suspected of having a biased view. First party sources are perfectly fine when used to share a person's experiences or to share facts (which is what all of the Manzanar Committee refs are, as far as I can tell). I don't see a problem with using the Manzanar Committee refs how they are currently being used as none of the places they are used are dealing with anything controversial or disputed. We've removed all the iffy ones already. SandyGeorgia doesn't have a problem with them either. Perhaps you can add in some of these sources you seem so intent on having included? I don't have time to do that right now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I am going to try to catch up here today. This is stalled, so perhaps needs to move to FARC to get more people to opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who seems to be stalled is Buidhe. He seems to be under the impression that a FA must use every reliable source that he's presented, and that without them, the article is not good enough. He also seems unwilling to put them in himself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman argument, I never said that. What I did say is that FA articles must follow the FA criteria, which includes being well-researched and comprehensive. I have argued above that the article at present does not meet the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then make a list of what you think is missing, and which sources should be used for it. Just giving a huge list of possible resources and demanding that they be used before you'll support keeping the article as featured isn't helpful. Make very specific suggestions, along the lines of "This section (page numbers) in this book contains information not covered in the article". Without that, you're basically demanding that someone read many thousands of pages of books and then guess at what you think is missing. The only specific suggestion I've seen is a chapter in a single book I have but haven't had time to read yet (Farewell to Manzanar, I believe). Unless you can provide very specific issues that can be addressed, your argument for not keeping it as featured is flawed and not helpful in improving it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you say that when in my last comment I said that the postwar section / historic site needs to be based on, or at least include, independent sources / reviews of the site (I won't repeat the full list), rather than just being based on involved sources as it is now. (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Moving to get more input regarding this article's status wrt the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist First, I want to recognize the amount of work that has gone into improving the article. However, I don't believe that the current state of the article meets comprehensiveness or well-researched criteria. My primary concern as stated above is that the postwar section is mostly based on primary and affiliated sources, while neglecting secondary sources that would provide an independent perspective. Examples of information that could be added from these sources are more information about the community engagement process that led to the creation of the current exhibits[2] and what it is like to visit.[10.1080/13527250701228239] Another alternative would be concluding that the current historic site is a separate topic from the internment camp, and splitting off Manzanar National Historic Site. Hovever, if both aspects are covered in this article I do think independent sources are needed. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I got here from the article itself, and I am not particularly familiar with the featured article criteria as they're widely applied (though of course I have looked at the criteria themselves as listed), but I do feel able to comment on some of the issues raised by User:Buidhe above. It is not uncommon, when doing humanities research about subjects that have not gotten a lot of attention, to find that the most accurate and detailed accounts are indeed by people with direct involvement. I have added information from the Public Historian article that Buidhe cites, but I note that the article is by Frank Hays, identified within the article as superintendent of the park. It's published in a highly reputable journal, which is good, but it may not be a coincidence that the richest sources of information would include people who work there. Thus, while it is true that more independent sources could be found (this LA Times story is OK--though, again, its primary source appears to be the late Mr. Hays)), they might not contribute that much in terms of comprehensiveness. On this basis I think it would be best to retain the article as featured. blameless 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think Nikkimaria and buidhe are not giving enough time for this article to be improved further. It's already an excellent article, and there is the one part that buidhe keeps harping on that could likely be improved further with some of the references he mentions above. However, he seems to be under the impression the article must be absolutely perfect in order to be kept as a featured article. No one is disputing any of the content in the article. Buidhe simply thinks one small section of it could be made better. Rather than delisting it and then having to go through all of the hassle to relist it, I think the FARC should be closed and we can move back to the FAR section to get some work done. Perhaps buidhe will even help out by adding in some of the sources he thinks should be used instead of requiring others to do the work for him. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, I've just expanded the article a bit more with additional references as well as cleaning up some of the existing references. I have at least one more article to use as a reference (the last of those buidhe kindly sent to me). This last one will add more details about life in the camp. If anyone can find some articles or books that can help with the "Manzanar Pilgrimage" section, that would be helpful. Of the 10 instances of citations in that section (8 if you discount those used multiple times), three are third party sources. Given the 130+ references in the article, I think having one section that has that many first/second party references is acceptable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on March 3, 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed House Resolution 543 into law (Pub.L. 102–248; 106 Stat. 40).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Manzanar/archive1&oldid=980520556"