User talk:Esmith71/sandbox

Easton, you've taken on a big project with this, but I think you can do it. I would have liked to have seen some of your new citations (Furukawa and Pflugfelder?) by this point. One thing we should discuss is the issue of periodization. You have created a new heading for "Tokugawa era", but some of the material in that section actually refers to periods before Tokugawa. I can talk that through with you so you can get a better sense of it. Elyssafaison (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey Easton!

I really liked that you added periodization headings to the article. Other than some minor grammatical things (which I see you wrote that you would fix) like extra commas or an unnecessary semicolon and where you have Mataki Sumitani's name in front of a sentence (probably was a copy/paste error), I think you should add a bit more info under yaoi media, like list some popular animes and mangas like you did with yuri and note that they definitely aren't necessarily pornographic, though some definitely are. Also, be sure to be consistant when capitalizing (or not capitalizing) yaoi and yuri. I would make the part where you talk about the two political figures speaking about their identities chronological (2003 then 2005). Also, maybe put the name of the gay magazine that is mentioned in the media section, if you can find it. And maybe specify what gay videos are? It looks like you were already working on this but I would put in a bibliography/works cited section with full citations for everything used. The sources you used looks good and there is a variety of types of sources, so that's really good. And the boxes at the bottom would be really useful when filled out, as they would help give the article more organization and clarity. It looks like the periodization and the boxes at the bottom are all your original ideas, so that's great! Overall, you've made really good progress on this article and I think it looks really good! You've added a lot of new, interesting, and necessary information to the article!

Rebecca

RAM2018 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Great job on making the lead paragraph more comprehensive. Maybe you could add a link to the sexology wikipedia page. Also, you might want to change the middle class section heading, since I don't think Tokugawa Japan had that kind of class delineation. Otherwise it looks great and I like that you added the Tokugawa and Meiji sections. I think Rebecca's suggestions are good, even if you weren't specifically working on the modern day sections. Catlover561 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! I want to echo that the lead paragraph looks better - will you be tackling some of the other sections as well? Definitely be careful about sourcing, though - you want to make sure that you try to source as much as possible. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your reviews, I appreciate it. The two main comments that I found helpful were the first one from Rebecca were she reminds me to keep checking the grammatical errors throughout the article. I found this helpful because I may have forgotten to keep checking for those, and reminders are helpful on page as large as this. The second one I found helpful was from Catlover were I’m advised to put a link to the sexology page, which I intend to do now. As for suggestions that I won’t be considering are from Rebecca were she suggests that I need to work more on the Yaoi and Yuri sections and the Modern section as well. While I want to work more on those I don’t believe I’ll have enough time. Also I would prefer to stick to the earlier eras, as they’re the ones that I’m most interested in. Also, those section tend to mix Gay and Lesbian relations, and as Prof. Faison suggested to me, it would be best if these topics be separated anyway so I don’t believe editing those suggestions would be a productive use of my time. Though I do appreciate the suggestion. As for the section about the middle class same-sex relations. I’m under the impression that these kind of relations did take place but to title “Middle-class” may be a bit misleading, so I will review it. I appreciate these peer reviews for they help may see how much progress I’ve made and how much more I have to do. They also help me organize on what things I will take up and things that I won’t do within the project. The comments I have received were very helpful and I appreciate my class mates suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmith71 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Response to your Peer Review Responsetr
First some overall comments, then more specific ones: It seems that the major changes you have made are 1) Creating the Tokugawa section and moving a lot of the pre-existing text into it, and 2) Creating the Meiji Japan section. I think you will do well to focus your energies in these two sections, and leave the rest of the article the way it is…even if there are problems. For example, while Marissa is correct that there is no "middle class" per se in Tokugawa Japan, I don't think you have time or resources to adequately address that problem with the article. Focus on the Tokugawa and Meiji sections, and other Wikipedians will someday improve the rest of it. As you will see in my comments below, I am not yet convinced that creating the Tokugawa sections really works, because a lot of the information in those sections actually belongs in the earlier part of the article (Ancient and postclassical). You might need to go back to the original format, and simply work within that framework to add more information and more citations.

Now the specific comments: In your lead when you talk about nanshoku you might want to define it (you can use Pflugfelder for this). At the end of the lead, the original article included a citation that you seem to have deleted. Is there some reason you took it out?

Ancient and post-classical section: The second sentence about Genshin is from the original article, but it does not make sense to me. Can you figure out what it means? There is a citation in the original article (though not in your sandbox). I recommend looking up the citation to see what the sentence is referring to and then making the sentence more clear, OR deleting it altogether. I see in other sections as well your sandbox appears to have stripped out the citations that are in the original. If you are going to leave these sections/sentences in, be sure to leave the citations the way they are, too.

In the Tokugawa section on monastic love, we still have the same problem I mentioned in my initial comments at the top of this page, and that we discussed when we met: The entire paragraph about Buddhist monks and chigo does not refer to the Tokugawa period, but the medieval (post-classical) period. So while your instinct to create a new Tokugawa section was well-intentioned, we now have the problem of stuff being in that section that does not belong. In the second paragraph of the monastic love section, I recommend deleting the phrase "so far" from the first sentence. I know it was not your original sentence, but the "so far" does not belong there.

Meiji Japan section: This section has writing problems that need to be addressed. For example, avoid use of the verb "progressed," as it tends to be vague. You can say much more simply, "In the Meiji era…." Also, look very carefully at your use of prepositions. You talk about growing animosity towards nanshoku in the Meiji era, but you don't give any reasons for it or a citation. These entire section needs more specificity and more/better citations, including page numbers from Furukawa and Pflugfelder. You have the resources you need with these two works; now you just need to sit with them, read them carefully, and summarize the sections that talk about the issues you raise in this section. I don't know that you need the "Rejection of Homosexuality" sub-heading; you might consider just leaving it as a paragraph within the larger Meiji Japan section. That is up to you to think about. First sentence in that "Rejection" section needs to be rewritten: "shift away towards"? You talk about the Keikan code without defining it. Really sit with this section and ask yourself if the grammar and syntax are correct, if you have explained/defined your terms, and if you have given adequate citations for your statements.

Your first reference needs full publication information and a page number for the citation. You could also use Pflugfelder for this. Your second reference is to a review of Pflugfelder's book, but you should be using the Pflugfelder book itself, not a review. I don't see that you are using the Furukawa and Pflugfelder readings we did in class in as meaningful a way as you could. Those two readings should be central to what you are adding to this article. Finally, when you leave a comment on a Talk page (yours, or any other), don't forget to sign it by using four tildes! Elyssafaison (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)