User:Claire Yeiji Hong/The Elephant Vanishes (short story)/Togata27 Peer Review

General info
Claire Yeiji Hong
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Claire Yeiji Hong/The Elephant Vanishes (short story)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Dear Claire,

You did a fantastic job with your Draft 1 of your Wikipedia article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and learning more about Haruki Murakami and this short story. It makes me want to read it! I have written my peer review for you below:

Lead:


 * The Lead has been written to reflect new content and includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic. It is bolded nicely to emphasize the main idea and also includes a heading of itself. However, I am unsure if the Lead normally needs a heading in the first place. I think, typically, it is a stand-alone one or two paragraphs that does not need the “The Elephant Vanishes (short story)” heading. In addition, the Lead is written concisely and gives enough detail of a summary of the short story to give the reader an idea of what it is about and what themes it touches upon - which later shows up under the heading “Main Characters” and “Major Themes.” This is something I actually take inspiration from and will try to do this in my own writing. Due to this nice setup, it is easier to follow and nicely summarizes the article’s major sections. Nicely done.
 * The Lead also consists of three different resources which is why I also consider it reliable, detailed-enough, and neutral. What I mean by neutral is the fact that it is well-rounded and takes information from numerous sources rather than stating information from one resource that may produce heavy information. Nevertheless, your resources in general seem unbiased and embody an evaluation rather than an opinionated article.

Content:


 * Although this short story was written between 1980-1991, then published in 2005, the sources cited are overall up to date including articles from 2016, 2005, and 2022. There is one journal article from 1999, however, the content is still relevant enough where it would not be flagged, especially since the content pulled from this resource is merely in the plot summary which does not change.
 * For each section, especially seen in the “Major Themes” section, there is a wide range of viewpoints being introduced and then further discussed, a good quality of an outstanding Wikipedia article. In addition, I would consider all information and content added is relevant to the topic and does not stray away from the short story.
 * I could not connect this article to any related historically underrepresented populations or topics. There was historical content included to describe what post-war Japan was like, however, groups of people were not discussed. The article does, in fact, use the short story to describe what life was like during that time period and their values.

Tone and Balance:


 * In general, I think writing about major themes is difficult because, perhaps, the writer did not intend for there to be major themes at all or the themes a writer or reviewer presents is formed by their own opinion and background. Despite this obvious obstacle, I think you still maintained a viewpoint based on fact and the reliable resources you used rather than incorporating your own perception of themes that were prominent within the writing. Or, you grabbed these themes from Murakami directly. The only sentence I found to have a little bit of bias was the sentence in which it says, “Murakami felt it awkward to name his characters.” Does a direct source say that he felt awkward or is this an assumption or conclusion based on your knowledge of him? Another way to make it more neutral is to change your work to simply say, “Murakami decided not to name his characters.” If it is mentioned in an article that he felt awkward, then I would suggest citing it. The viewpoints you brought into the article were well-balanced and I do not have any more feedback.

Sources and References:


 * It is understandable that this short story will not contain many reliable sources as it is not as well-known as other topics. But this gives the article strength as it fills a content gap that should be bridged since this article seems of good and interesting importance, something that readers would like to examine. This Wikipedia article contains 5 sources in total. All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * When double checking the accuracy of your cited sources and the information you pull from them, they are well-represented and reflect what the cited sources say. Especially with Mori’s argument, you summarized very well.


 * I am glad to see that two of your sources are from JSTOR articles and they seem, overall, up to date. Your sources are written by both female and male writers, however, I see much American representation and not many people actually from Japan aside from Haruki Murakami. This is just something I took note of.
 * Your use of quotes in certain places is fantastic. For example, you quote phrases rather than complete sentences such as “special warmth or “town symbol.” Your use of these helps the reader understand that these terms are not biased and rather pulled directly from the reading.
 * I am unsure how you created a heading for the bibliography, but I like its format and will try to use that in my own writing. Well done.

Organization:


 * The different subsections you have are perfect and allow the reader to easily find information they are looking for, whether they have questions about specific characters or about a more in-depth analysis moving beyond its surface-level summary.
 * Transitions are not always necessary in Wikipedia articles, but I think for a Wikipedia article about a short story, the plot summary section should follow a somewhat story line. Overall, this section is fantastic as I, someone who has never read this short story, can get a good grasp on the main points, setting, and chronology of events that occur within the story. However, the transition between paragraphs four and five was a slight jump. I had to reread paragraph four in order to figure out the relevance to paragraph five since paragraph five begins to talk about the narrator’s experience meeting a woman, a transition from the previous paragraph where it focuses on the elephant’s disappearance. The last sentence of paragraph five makes me understand why the mention of a woman is relevant, nevertheless, a transition word or sentence at the start would likely help a reader feel less lost, ease their reading experience, and make certain the separation of paragraphs will not seem as grand. This will also ensure a better flow of the plot summary, making it easier to read.
 * This is just a quick note but in the paragraph under the “Elephant” paragraph, I believe the word “describe” should be “described.” In the second paragraph of “Finding Identity,” I think the sentence “Welch make it clear that…” needs to be edited to change “make” to “makes.”

Images and Media:


 * The article includes one image in order to enhance understanding of the topic. It is the cover of the book title, which one may typically see in a Wikipedia article of a short story. The image is captioned “Cover of the book The Elephant Vanishes.” When looking at other Wikipedia articles written about short stories, I notice that some of them include captions specifying who illustrated the cover or stating that it is one version of the cover. Perhaps I might suggest researching if this is the only cover illustration that exists of this short story, or if others also exist. The image does adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations, so overall, it is fitting.

Overall:


 * Since this article was newly created, the quality of the article is very good and has many strengths in its content and structure. One of its greatest strengths is its organization and ease of reading, especially since I am someone who has never read this short story before. The article contains well-organized section headings that follow a traditional Wikipedia article written about a short story listing its plot summary, main characters, major themes, and even a unique critical reception section at the end. Since this is a new article and not one created from a stub article, it does, in fact, meet all the notability requirements and is supported by more than 3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.
 * It was quite intriguing to read your Wikipedia article, and I am impressed by how you curated your information. I understand the difficulty of deciding what information to include and what not to include, especially in the plot summary. Of course there is information that is impossible to cite since it would make the plot summary too lengthy, but overall, I thought you did a fantastic job of ensuring there was enough detail to keep the reader engaged, while not overwhelming the reader with too much information.
 * Last quick note: From a quick and simple search, one aspect of Wikipedia articles written about short stories that I notice is that some of them contain a gray box at the top right corner of the article that briefly states basic summarizing information such as the country, language, and genre it is written in. It can include other information such as publisher, publication type, and publication date. Although this information is stated in your Wikipedia article, I also think it would visually enhance your article if you desired to include it. An example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_the_Magi