User talk:FuuHouji/sandbox

Feedback on potential topics
These all look like doable topics, but I'd like to encourage you to work on the Proletarian Literature article. Your idea of adding a Korean section and expanding the existing Japanese section solves a real problem--the Eurocentrism of a lot of articles on general/global cultural topics. Ctextor at uofu (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on Project Proposal
The bibliography you and Nakita have compiled looks excellent. I would only suggest that you also check out Sunyoung Park's The Proletarian Wave (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674417175). There is one chapter of it available as a PDF on the Canvas page under Further Reading.

Eventually the two of you will want to figure out how to divide the writing up so that both of you make substantial contributions. One way to go about it would be listing 4-5 subtopics you want to cover within the section you're adding and then dividing up those topics. Let me know if you have questions or concerns about sharing the load. Ctextor at uofu (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great job! I like how your article brings up relevant topics without getting bogged down by being too descriptive; your section is concise and full of information. One piece of feedback I can offer is to define definitions like 'zainichi' or 'soikai'(was that one?) if they're not already defined or mentioned in the article or you could link to the article as well. If words like that continually stand out to a reader, it could slow down the flow of their reading and make them lose interest. Shoujess (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

CT Feedback
This is looking really thorough and well-documented. I would not be surprised if the community eventually decides that Proletarian Literature in Korea should be its own stand-alone article.

As you said yourself, this first sentence is liable to get some pushback: "The Proletarian Cultural Movement arose in Korea from 1910-1945 due to the desire to free Koreans from Japanese Colonial oppression." Because it is potentially controversial, I think you need to have a citation or two at the end of this sentence, directly documenting this claim. You may also wish to support it more in the text that follows by going into a bit more detail about how anti-imperial and communist movements were connected in Korea. Alternatively, you could soften the initial claim a tiny bit, perhaps by changing "due to the desire to free Koreans from Japanese colonial oppression" to something like "alongside cultural movements opposed to Japanese colonial rule." Just make sure that what you say is clearly there in the literature you're citing.

This may work out once you integrate your work with Nakita's, but one other thing I noticed is that your draft spends a lot of time talking about the politics of the proletarian movement in Korea and less time talking about the literature and culture, which is a concern since you're contributing to the article on Proletarian Literature. Are there ways you can connect the movements you're talking about to literature more clearly? If not, the content you have here is certainly still valuable. I just wonder if it might be more appropriate to propose a stand-alone article on "The Proletarian Movement in Korea" or something like that.

Finally, sometimes I'm not clear on the significance or context of some of the things you mention. For example, how did UERP lead to the establishment of a proletarian movement? Have you defined KOPF before you use it in the third paragraph? Ctextor at uofu (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I thoroughly enjoyed your overall draft as your contribution to the Proletarian literature page.

The grammar and vocabulary used was objective and professional. In this regard, the only part that sounded weird when I read it was; "...and 30-40 percent of Zenkyō's members were now strictly Korean." If the 'now' was taken out or replaced, I believe the sentence would sound stronger.

What you wrote about was appropriate and never went off topic. Your material is quite informational and had depth to it. In terms of your draft's length, it seems proportional to the rest of the articles' lengths. Although I personally would like to read more about the Korean proletarian literature.

With that being said, your sources were also good and I found no problem with how they were formatted or their credibility. DarianRes (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)