User talk:Lydiacatfish/sandbox

Hi Lydia, it looks like you haven't really started this in earnest yet. There are scholarly secondary sources on Ariyoshi in English that should be cited--where you able to conduct some searches on the libraries page and come up with anything? So far it appears you have modified some of the language of the article, though not always in ways that appear to improve it. When we meet we'll go over it together. Elyssafaison (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor: Writing could be still be touched up. Sentences sometimes run-on. The sentence about the doctor stands out. Maybe have the wiki link for "China Report" be in the article when it is referenced. Otherwise, really great work. Lots of citations, biography seems improved. Adding a "writing" section was smart and helped the article. If you wanted to add more, you could go into more detail about the structure/focus of some of the better known books (i.e. how did her experiences go into China Report?). Possibly a legacy section? Still, most of that is dressing. The body of your changes is very strong. Godzilla5428 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Review: I think the lead would read better if you put the bit about liking tradition arts in the Personal section and either delete the clause with Sarah Lawrence or just said New York (cause it's confusing if you don't know what Sarah Lawrence is). Otherwise it's really good! It has a clear structure and looks balanced and neutral. I also like how you put in so many of her works. If you want more sources, you could look for some in Japanese if you haven't already. It's difficult to read sometimes, but not impossible. Catlover561 (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I just wanted to add a bit to this. I wanted to make sure that you attribute viewpoints in the article, specifically the claims about her writing. You may want to change this slightly to attribute it to the specific author making the claim by writing something like (for example) "and is considered to be one of Japan's most famous female writers by authors/writer/etc such as (insert name)". You could also write something like "lauded by the Japan Times as one of the finest postwar Japanese women writers." Also, avoid using sources like IMDb, as this isn't seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia - even for most basic information. The reason for this is that IMDb accepts user submitted content and doesn't always apply the greatest fact checking to these changes, so it's not impossible to have something come up and be incorrect. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reviews! Adam, your advice about run-on sentences is helpful, that's something I do a lot and am trying to work on. Thank you for pointing it out in my article. I don't think the article for China Report is the same one she wrote, but I'll look into it and link it if it is. Marissa, I linked Sarah Lawrence later in the article but thank you for mentioning it being up at the beginning so I can link it there! I think that will fix that problem. I will also mention about traditional arts in her lead section because I do think it's important, so thank you for that. To Shalor, I will work on the attributions and I will remove the IMDb source and find another that references her work in television.Lydiacatfish (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Response to Peer Review Response
The Lead: should be “fascination WITH”, and “her time AT Sarah Laurence.” These two issues lead me to suspect that you may need to pay attention more closely to your use of prepositions in general. The sentence about her marriage would be better split, like this: “In 1962 she married Jin Akira and had a daughter. The couple divorced in 1964.” (Your sentence now is not syntactically clear because the subject gets separated from the verb [divorce] by the end.) I would also recommend you say “she died” rather than the euphemism “she passed away.” Later after the Sarah Laurence bit, you should consider reverting to the original language of “she worked for a publishing company.” Your change of “worked” to “joined” makes the sentence much more vague. In the Writing section, you say “The Doctors Wife….has identified her as….” which needs to be rewritten. The novel does not/cannot “identify” its author as anything. Maybe you could say “has marked her as…”? Just because I hope you will find it amusing, the sentence in your peer review response in which you thank Adam for pointing out the run-on sentences is itself a run-on sentence! Let me second Marissa’s suggestion that you look at some Japanese sources…Try to search her name in the Japan Knowledge database and see if you get a useful entry for her there. Also do look at the Rethinking Japanese Feminisms book you say you plan to investigate. Good so far…The sections you have added definitely contribute to the article. Elyssafaison (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)