User talk:Brute55/sandbox

Hi Joel, this is Sarah, and I'm stopping by to review your article so far. I think I should start right away from saying that it appears you still have a long way to go. I read through your article evaluation, and it seems as though you have done very little of what your original intentions are. Because of that, it is very hard to evaluate in a way I think will help you. I have noticed that you are rewriting the introduction, which I think is very needed. I read through the original and I think it implies way too many untrue things which the people on the talk page have already pointed out. Rewriting it is definitely a great idea! However, I think "This article depicts these various aspects, such as sexual orientation and gender roles in Japanese society starting in the Tokugawa Period (1600-1868) to the present day" is very out of place for a Wikipedia article. With the exception of Wikipedia List pages, I've never seen an article refer to itself before. The Table of Contents is another out-of-place addition. If it was just intended for your own personal notes though, I think expanding on the bulleted items you gave for each period is a great idea! For the section you have done work on, I highly recommend changing the name. "Tokugawa Period (1600-1868) Through the Meiji Period (1868-1912)" is cumbersome, and you'd benefit from maybe doing "Tokugawa and Meiji Period (1600-1912)." However, now that I consider it, that's a super long period to have for one sections. Is there nothing that distinguished the two periods in terms of sexuality? I can't imagine nothing changed in 400 years... also, "Beginning with Heterosexual relations," sounds strange for Wikipedia. I'd recommend just "For heterosexual relations". Again, there's not much in the text itself to review, but I find a recap of the period with all the stuff not about sexuality to be unusual for Wikipedia. Kafkanaut 7:10 AM, 20 February 2019

129.15.64.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Joel, this is a very good evaluation. And you are absolutely right that the emphasis on pornography in this article appears to be more representative of western fetishes ABOUT Japan than it is about sexuality in Japan. One thing I would caution you about is making assumptions about the three categories you talked about wanting to incorporate into the article: heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality. Before you settle on those categories you may need to be sure you have thought carefully about whether those are the most appropriate categories for talking about modern Japan. In other words, do not assume that the categories you are most familiar with in the U.S. operate exactly the same way in Japan, or that there might not be different categories. The research you do to help you add to and edit this article will help you with this issue. Elyssafaison (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)