User talk:Chaseander/sandbox

Hey Chase, it's Sarah; I'm here to peer review your article. I realize this sounds harsh, but I feel that maybe didn't do as much as you could of, because when I compare your revisions to the original article for Ueno Chizuko, I only see a few sentences (around 4 to 5, but I maybe miscounting) that have been edited or added. As such, it is hard to give a very thorough review; so I'll just go from top to bottom with my general recommendations. Firstly, I love the sentence you added to the introduction. I do feel you could add a bit more though and elaborate. I feel like a few sentences of summery would make the introduction easier for readers to understand the layout and the information contained in your article. I have similar feelings regarding the early life section. Your added sentence is really nice, but the section you've added it to has plenty of other areas to expand. I looked over the interview The Times did on her which either you or someone else cited on the Wikipedia page. I think there's plenty more you can add to the early life section from there, especially regarding her father! Again, for the academic section, I can't help feeling that more needs to be added. The interview I just mentioned has plenty of stuff regarding her job positions before Tokyo U for instance, and I'm sure better sources that aren't primary are out there as well. Great work on the views page, but also, expand it. I'd also recommend breaking it into subsections. For instance, you could have an individual section called "Views on reproductive rights" and expanding that. Other subsections live that could really help give a clearer view on who she is and her feminist beliefs. So, in conclusion, what you have added sounds amazing; but add a bit more as it currently appears you have spent little time on the assignment. I think there are many sources out there in which you can find information to expand upon, but if not, ask Dr. Faison for help. She greatly aided me when I ran into source difficulties! Kafkanaut 7:31 AM, 20 February 2019

129.15.64.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Chase, the instructions asked you to evaluate the article in a number of areas, including content, tone, and sources. It also listed things to look at in each of these categories. This evaluation could be bit more thorough. Elyssafaison (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)