User talk:Berezki/treatysandbox

Hello, I'm here to review your article!

Right of the bat, I think you need to reformat a few things. The contents box appears above the article's title, for instance, which isn't normal and made me a bit confused on whether you had a summary or not. Your summary is rather good, but I'm worried about a few tenses I think you may have incorrect. For instance, "ratifications exchanged" needs were between it and "that Japan cedes to Russia" needs ceded instead.

Your background is a nice addition; the original article didn't have any sections so I like the way you have expanded things. However, I am bothered by the fact the Golovnin incident is described only to be followed by in the next section, "Without well-defined borders, incidents between Russian and Japanese settlers began to occur." You need to have something like, "Without well-defined borders, incidents between Russian and Japanese settlers, like that which occured with the Golovnin incident, occurred." Otherwise, it sounds like an introduction sentence to a paragraph you've already written.

Having a copy of the treaty in English would be nice, and I know that's something you're working on, so I won't mention it further. Other things you could add include whether the treaty was actually obeyed by both parties. I know Japanese fishers sometimes ignored sea boundaries; I have no idea whether or not this happened in this case, but it would be interesting to look into whether or not further incidents occurred.

Overall, I'd say you've made some good additions. Keep up the good work!

Kafkanaut 11:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructor comments 2020
Hi Hannah,

This looks like a good start, but just a start. One thing to consider is why the 1875 Treat of St. Petersburg is of interest to anyone today. If it is, as I suspect, because there is an ongoing territorial dispute between Russia and Japan in which this treaty has an historical role, then think about adding content that speaks to that issue. The Golovnin Incident addition is good. Perhaps cast the discussion about Shimoda in light of what it means for the ongoing dispute, and how Shimoda related to St. Petersburg. You might also talk about how the Japanese and Russian states have interpreted the 1875 over time. Ever since then, each country has had a different understanding of what the treaty (and subsequent agreements related to the Kurils and Sakhalin) meant. I did a quick search on JSTOR using keywords "treaty of petersburg japan" (I worried that "St." might throw things off so I left it out), and came up with at least one article that gives some pertinent information.

Here are some specific comments related to the new section on Golovnin that you added. Your new text reads:

Golovnin Incident[edit] One major incident that occurred in the early 19th century was the capture of Vasily Golovnin, a Russian explorer tasked by Tsar Alexander I with mapping the Kuril Islands. When Golovnin and his crew aboard the ship Diana approached Kunashir Island in 1811, they were taken ashore and imprisoned for violating Sakoku.[6] Golovnin and his crew were held prisoner for two years and were released in 1813. This event, known as the Golovnin Incident, demonstrated that the border between Russia and Japan was too vague, and that to avoid another episode such as Golovnin's, the border needed to be clearly defined.[7]

In the text above: •	Consider starting first sentence more directly, e.g. leave out “One major incident that occurred….” Instead cut to the chase and say, “In 1811, the Russian explorer Vasily Golovnin was captured by Tokugawa authorities….” You can put the rest of the content of this sentence into a separate sentence. •	Give the English for “sakoku” so your reader does not have to hit the link to know what you are talking about. For whom did the Golovnin Incident demonstrate that the border was vague? For the Russians? I suspect the Japanese were perfectly happy with their understanding of the border. It was the Russians who wanted it “clearly defined,” in their favor of course. Be sure your writing makes clear whose interests are at stake.

Let's see about having a Zoom meeting to talk through this project soon. Elyssafaison (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructor comments 2020: Second Round
This version looks better. It is still a bit thin, but that clearly is related to your inability to get at library sources.

In this sentence, "The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs still cites this treaty as a reason to define the northern borders ." I am not sure what you mean by "a reason to define the northern borders."

Last section of your article is a repeat of info in the lead. Just delete it?

Elyssafaison (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)