User talk:Jbouchie/sandbox

Test of feedback options.
I am testing the various options for providing instructor feedback and peer review for the first drafts of the WGS 301 articles. FeliceLifshitz (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)FeliceLifshitz

Peer Review
Done by Raeganzottl (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)raeganzottl

I came up with these ideas for what else you could still potentially research/add based on the questions I had after reading both the original article and your drafted edits.

1. Maybe you could add information about the location of the magazine. Such as where did the magazine originate in Japan and how far did it spread. (all across the country or just in a specific area of the country) And if it did disseminate all across the country how did this occur. I think this would just help provide insight into how many people were affected by the material.

2. Could the magazine be attached or fit within any more specific categories of feminism? Or were the views very broad and extensive and could not be described as anything more narrow than feminist. I think talking about this could help provide a better understanding of the perspectives and views within the magazine.

3. I thought it was really important that you added a members section. You could possibly add the New Women's information to this category and expand on the relationship between the women or any shared identity that they might have had. This could help explain if the magazine attracted a specific kind of woman. You could also explore the ages of the women here to display the wide or narrow range of voices found within the works or if a specific audience was being targeted. I think it would also be beneficial to add a bit of information on the original creators to provide more background on their reasons for creating the magazine.

4. I do not know if it's just me, but I struggled to understand what was actually in the magazine because the information about content was all over the place. I think it would be more useful for flow purposes to create a content section that outlines the types of work available in the issues, the topics discussed, and any key issues that were repeatedly addressed. I think will make it more clear how the magazine addressed inequality for women.

5. In the controversy section, it mentions that the Bluestockings criticized the Capital System. I think you could add more information on how exactly it did this. It only really speaks about the use of sexual content/ their disagreement with marriage. Was this what threatened the government or was there more to it? Adding tho this section could make it more clear how the magazine was progressive and defied societal norms. Also was there more action taken against the contributors? There do not seem to be many serious sanctions taken against the magazine or its writers, so how serious was the backlash that they faced.

6. The legacy section is very limited. To signify how important the group was I think this section should have more additional info. I think it would be more beneficial to add about the contributions that the Bluestockings had on the feminist movement in Japan here rather than just in the see also section. Maybe also add more information about the groups inspired by the bluestockings.

7. Finally, in your sandbox I saw a section on Germany, Korea, and Japan but could not find this in the original article or any evidence of its removal. So I was unsure how it fits in. Maybe add more information to explain the section so it can be understood why it is important. Or remove the section and add the information somewhere else that it could help.

Great job though so far! I hope some of these ideas help you with your second draft and good luck with your future work.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? User:Jbouchie
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bluestocking (magazine) Sandbox Draft

Guiding questions:

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, introduction has been omitted
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, for the name meaning and members
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, new information has been added to existing sections and new sections has been created as well
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Detailed enough, not over the top

Lead evaluation

 * It is not stated whether or not the omitted sections are going to be further edited
 * Perhaps explain why sections are omitted

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? No

Content evaluation

 * Since the full article is not copy and pasted onto the sandbox, it is assumed that sections not included are relevant to the topic and do not need additional editing

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

 * New additions to the existing article only stated straight facts and avoids any personal inputs that may persuade readers

Guiding questions:

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part, yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Draft provides both internal (wikipedia) and external sources
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

 * Members and contributors section includes one citation for the whole list, no citations were added onto the paragraph explanation
 * Reference section only provides links not the full citations

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content is broken down into sections but could reflect upon and go into detail about the major points a little more

Organization evaluation

 * Draft is overall organized and information is located in their relevant sections
 * If information is being omitted, the sections should be as well

Images and Media
N/A

Guiding questions:

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, sections have been added onto to provide further details
 * What are the strengths of the content added? New content includes more specific examples and explanations
 * How can the content added be improved? The "New Woman In Germany, Korea and Japan" section does not seem to flow or easily connect with the rest of the article

Overall evaluation

 * Names of the members and contributors was a good idea so they are recognized
 * New information provided had working and up to date references
 * Some sections seem to still be incomplete, such as the New Woman portion
 * A "backlash" was mentioned a couple of times in the Members and Contributors section though it was not further explained what it was referring to
 * Overall, additions to the article are relevant and well written without grammar mistakes

Agarma (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC) User:Agarma

Instructor Feedback. Note: This article has only received two peer reviews.
First of all, top level props to you for already having addressed the larger level of Wikipedia and what you are going to do to improve the overall coverage of the History of Feminism. Second, the individual things you are proposing are very good. Zottl has pointed you towards a lot of themes that could strengthen the article. It’s astonishing to me that this article was already in 2018 part of another Women’s history class Wikipedia project, but it is still so thin; it’s likewise astonishing that the article is rated as low importance on so many different scales! It seems to me to be quite important, and anything you can do to flesh it out would be excellent. The current article has virtually no historical context or background, and you could add there, especially the context of the background of the Great War/WW1. Another way to develop this is to do something with feminism in Japan after the war and after the magazine closed down, since some of the key figures post war were also involved in Seito. So eg this article: Germer, Andrea. “Japanese Feminists After Versailles.” Journal of Women’s History 25, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 92–115. doi:10.1353/jowh.2013.0038. Generally you are just very much on the right track and I would say that exploiting Bardsley’s book to the fullest and bringing in a bit more scholarship (which I trust you to find, perhaps with the help of David Sulz) should produce an excellent final product --FeliceLifshitz (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)