User talk:ATang1392/sandbox

Hi Anthony, I've looked at your article evaluation so you can delete that from your sandbox now if you want to make room for other things. I take it you plan on working only with the sections of the Mori article that you have put in your sandbox, and leaving the rest as it is? When we meet let's talk about what kinds of sources you have and what you plan to do next. Elyssafaison (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Review
I think this is a really good edit, but the only thing missing is the names of the 3 Edo period doctors that he wrote about. The resulting article looks like it will be really good. Viperwing (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

~ Thank you for reviewing the work I had done so far. With your response to the article in my sandbox, I will continue to add more information regarding the doctors in his later career. Every bit of information that I can receive will help improve my understanding of historical writing. First, I will play around with the branching layout of the sandbox so I can include a quick description of the three doctors. I believe that the three doctor biographies have a significant importance to Mori Ogai’s literary work before his passing in 1922. I believe that having sections for each one (or just one for his general biographical experience) will bring light to his skills as a writer. However, I’ve managed to find one article that reviewed his work regarding all three doctors. I will continue to look around for another source to back up the facts. The comment on the doctors was very much needed, so I really appreciate that. Yet, I was expecting more regarding the review. I am still trying to get accustomed to the layout of the sandbox, and I was hoping to see if there were any thoughts on the layout of my article. Is there any other way to organize the sections I am currently editing? Does anything seem too complicated to too simplified? I will be looking forward to another review one day.ATang1392 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Response to your Peer Review Responset
Anthony, in the first line it seems that if you are going to mention that he is a father, it should be for the purpose of linking to his famous daughter's page, as was done in the original article that you are editing. Delete the second sentence. Third sentence would be better as: "Mori Ogai obtained his medical license…." Fourth sentence needs to be rewritten: doesn't make sense for a "name to take prestige", and rest of the sentence is awkward. Same with fifth sentence: I am not sure what it means. Last sentence and throughout the article: stay in past tense.

It seems you have omitted the "early life" section from your sandbox. I hope you are not planning to delete it from the article. You have not made any changes that I can see in the "early career" section. In the Later Career section, you seem to have combined the last two sentences of the earlier article. I am not sure why. It was actually more clear in the original Be sure when you are making changes that you are actually making improvements. If you are not sure, best to leave the original alone.

Later career section: Second paragraph, would be better to talk about his army medication promotion and his work with the Fine Arts Academy in two separate sentences. When you combine them in one sentence, you reader is left wondering if there is a connection between them. End of that paragraph, change to "resolved after his death." ("Passing" is a euphemism.) Last sentence in that paragraph, delete the word "then". It was not in the original; I am not sure why you added it.

In the Literary Career section, I think you should revert back to the original sentence about the biographies of Edo period doctors. Your sentence is less specific, and more wordy in ways that do not contribute any new information.

It seems the section on Vita Sexualis is new, and is your most significant contribution. But here you will need to take up some of the suggestions made by Shalor.

You have added some very good sources to the "Sources" list, but it does not appear you have used them in the article. What you need to do is read them, integrate information from them into your article, and cite them in the article. As of this moment it does not appear you have done much except to change the wording of a few sentences that did not necessarily need to be changed. If you want, we can discuss this in my office hours on Tuesday morning. Elyssafaison (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Instructor final comments before moving to main space
I have had a look and here are some comments. First, something I had not noticed previously, but the first line of the lead (which is the original; not your work) is not entirely accurate. It says: "Lieutenant General Mori Ogai was…." The problem with this statement was the "Mori Ogai" was the pen-name of Mori Rintaro. So we know the WRITER today as Mori Ogai, but as an army doctor he would have been known as Mori Rintaro. I would suggest you fix this by simply changing it to "Lieutenant General Mori Rintaro, better known by his pen-name Mori Ogai, was a…."

Also in your lead you talk about Mori being the first "to successfully transliterate western style poetry for Japan." I had a look at the source you cited, and it says this:

"After returning to Japan in 1888, Ōgai immediately undertook efforts to modernize both Japanese medicine and Japanese literature. In 1889, he published a collection of translated poetry called Omokage (Vestiges). This is considered the first poetic anthology in Japanese to successfully convey a sense of the aesthetic qualities of Western poetry."

Please note that there is nothing in this passage about transliteration (transliteration and translation are two very different things), and I think it is also a stretch to say he was the first to successfully translate western style poetry. You have tried to paraphrase, but your paraphrase is not accurate. I think you can use this, you just need to look at it again and come up with a more accurate paraphrase that reflects the content of your source material.

Also in your first paragraph, try to rewrite the sentence that says "both good and improper to some viewers". That phrase doesn't really mean anything that is clear, and early in the sentence one does not "establish many works" but rather one "writes" them.

In the "Later Career" section, think about replaces the word "enclosed" with something else. "Enclosed" doesn't work too well here.

First sentence of your section on Vita Sexualis does not read properly. In particular, the phrase "and something else entirely" is too vague here. The last two sentences before footnote number 6 also need to be reworked. This is good material that you have added….now you need to work on the writing. You are almost there! Elyssafaison (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)