User talk:Historyfan323/sandbox

Hello Historyfan323! I think this is where we are supposed to post feedback! Let me know if you have any issues!

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review. General info Whose work are you reviewing? Historyfan323 Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Historyfan323/sandbox Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has in the sandbox. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, a well formed introductory sentence is in place. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not fully, they are bolded but not introduced at the beginning as far as formatting. They are introduced through the work as they occur however.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, the only concern there is no text is below the 1907 Ashio Riot portion. Lead evaluation The lead placed the draft in the sandbox as directed. Added historical background and additional responses to the incidents rounding out the entire chronology instead of just incidents. Content: Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? From what I can tell, yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The 1907 Ashio Riot section lacks text, seems to be missing.

Content evaluation The article was transformed from a very narrow approach to a singular issue to a comprehensive view of the Ashio Copper Mine. The lead further expanded the background, reasons for incident occurrence and government response/aftermath to the article. Tone and Balance Is the content added neutral? In my opinion yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not from my evaluation. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The 1907 Ashio Riot is void of any information in it’s draft form. The aftermath seems to be geared towars one individual, were their other voices not cited? Also, what is the relevance of the Pond as a Ramsar site? Is that an important point? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. It serves as an informatory voice.

Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes from first glance

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I am not well-versed in this literature so I cannot comment

Are the sources current? Yes, most are within the last decade with some older.

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the articles within the draft and the sources work properly.

Sources and references evaluation The sources and references links work and seem to be properly placed for the information it supports.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well worded and adds to the informative quality of the article. It is approachable and easy to digest.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the introduction, slave labor instead of slave labour. 1887 reference under History section, recommend removing however from between the commas. Several vague and confusing sentences under Problems Continue and the Government Responds section, recommend some concise language change. I.E. Then, in March, dissatisfied farmers marched on Tokyo twice, with the second march comprising 4,000 participants. Revised: In March of the same year, dissatisfied farmers conducted marched protests twice in Tokoyo soliciting 4,000 participants in the second protest. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Very well organized Organization evaluation Overall, the drafted additions bring great value to the article as a whole. Most issues are already mentioned. The lead needs to fill in the 1907 Ashio Riot information or remove it. Also the first sentence of the Aftermath is kind of vague, may consider a more pointed introduction. What about the victims?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I see text information boxes added

Are images well-captioned?

N/A

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/A

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes

Images and media evaluation The text boxes are good information and well organized.

Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has much better background and specified information throughout its body. The article is substantially more complete than the original version. What are the strengths of the content added? The new content provides a background, political and social relevance of the issue as well as the voice of the Japanese people affected by pollution. It is a good balance between technical jargon and human impact that was largely added by the lead to the draft.

How can the content added be improved? Complete some of the items suggested above and fill in the 1907 Ashio Riot section. If available, list any law suits or relevant compensation claims. Overall evaluation The lead did an excellent job of filling a previously blank article with comprehensive data. There is now a full view of the incident rather than just incident specifics. With a few modifications, the article will be complete and ready for release! Good job! Charstutz (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

James Review
General info Whose work are you reviewing? Historyfan323

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? In the sandbox, yes. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. They are bolded but not in the opening section. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A little Lead evaluation: Hanah has added more general information to assist in the timeline of the incident. The 1907 section is not filled, but I am sure will be done.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The 1907 Ashio Riot is missing but Im sure it will be filled later.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? For the most part. The only thing I questioned on neutrality is a phrase "regardless of what they wanted to do" Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. But maybe comments from the owner would help, of they even existed. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I see. Except the 1907 Riot. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. It is all necessary information.

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, she has added many new sources as well as adjusting the information from the original article. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I am not familiar enough to answer the question though she has added many sources. Are the sources current? For the most part, yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the sandbox links work.

Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well-written and easy to follow. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Whenever the National Diet is mentioned, it needs to be National Diet instead of shortened to Diet. Also, sometimes the 'N' is not capitalized. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. They sections are a good guide through the chronological events.

Organization evaluation Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A Are images well-captioned? N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely, Hannah has increased the article's length and depth considerably. What are the strengths of the content added? The added information reveals the long struggle against environmental pollution by the locals.It also provides a background to the incident. How can the content added be improved? The 1907 Riot section, any voice from the owner or company, and perhaps more discussion on the later impact of this event to the present. Overall evaluation: Overall, it is very well written and a very welcome addition to the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamespgj (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructor comments 2020
Looks like you have made a substantial contribution to this article. Also looks like you could beef up the lead a bit.

“History” section: Make sure footnote always goes after final punctuation. Towards the end of the section, instead of “miners at the mine” maybe “miners at Ashio Copper Mine”. Last sentence of section does not read. Sound like “centuries of mining” and “introduction of foreign ore” are supposed to be connected somehow. See if you can reword it.

“Ashio Copper Mine Incident” You’ve done a great job with section, drawing from Walker and working in Notehelfer as well. The last sentence does not seem to work in this section anymore. Can you draw anything more out of this source to talk about how the 1911 Factory Law addressed environmental pollution? If not, you might want to get rid of it. It seems like an orphan sentence right now.

Would be good if you could get to the end of the story with of the striking workers in the Ashio Riot section. Needs a final short paragraph to tell us how it ends and what the result is.

Elyssafaison (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)