User talk:Patrickortez/miyamoto

I have moved the Early Life, Literary Career, and Death sections into a larger Biography section, along with appropriate sub-headings. I moved the Writing section to after the Biography section and added a List of Works to the end. Patrickortez (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Finished Draft
I have restructured the Biography section and added List of Works and Views sections. I am concerned about the structure of the Biography section, particularly as it centers around her marriages. However, the events of her marriages marked various periods of productivity and stagnation, so it makes the most sense to me. Patrickortez (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of Work
My editions for the article focused on 3 main points: structure, depth, and citation. The original article can still be found under "Miyamoto Yuriko." I reorganized the structure in a way that makes more sense for a writer (loosely modeled after other recommended writer pages, such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez's). The details are explained in my previous posts. I expanded on almost all sections, with a special focus on the lead section and Biography section. I also added a Views section. Finally, I added several new sources and added in-line citations throughout (the original had fewer than 15). Patrickortez (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review.
After viewing the original page and now seeing your work, I am very impressed. The sheer amount of new content will provide those interested in Miyamota much more information than previously available. The overall flow of your work seems very smooth and follows a time line like structure. That makes it easier to grasp the information in this article, in my opinion. Also, the citations and new information given in the "writing" section specifically is what I liked the most in your change. There wasn't a single one resource given for that section in the original version. The list of her works was a nice addition as well. Furthermore, your resources are well researched and easy to follow up on should one so desire. Good Work! Brute55 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! You pointed out some things I did well, so I'll be sure not to change those things in my final draft of the article. I am particularly glad you think the new structure flows well! Patrickortez (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments
In the “early life” section you changed the original from saying he was a professor or architecture at Tokyo Imperial University to say instead that he was a Tokyo Imperial University-trained architect. Those mean very different things. Are you sure that the change you made reflects the correct information? Consider starting a new sentence with “Her mother had not intention of forcing her daughter….” The second paragraph of this section has the same problem, where you attempt to string two unrelated things together in one sentence. The first sentence says she attended Ochanomizu Girls’ Middle School. Best to end sentence there, since the issue of here awareness of socio-economic differences at an early age is not necessarily related to that school attendance. Not clear why you start the last sentence of this paragraph with “Miyamoto’s interest”. Not clear what the “interest” is. Best to leave that off the beginning of the sentence. In the “Travel to US” section (and elsewhere) you cite the book Red Love in the Pacific. It is crucial that you cite not just the book, but the specific essay within the book. This is true for any essay you use that is in an edited volume. Start with the essay author’s name (I suspect it is Bowen-Struyk?), then the essay title, then the book title, editors, etc. Also in this first paragraph of the U.S. section you use the phrase “they were widely different”. The set phrase is actual “wildly different”. “Political and social views” section: “As a motivator to issues of gender an class” is awkward phrasing. Next paragraph should read “in contrast to…” Last paragraph: consider rephrasing the first sentence (including the part after the semicolon); syntax is convoluted. You have added substantially to this article, both in terms of content and citations, and the added list of works. Now your goal should be to make the writing as clean as fluid as possible and correct citations. Please note that in addition to the citational issue related to essays in anthologies I noted above, there also seems to be some problems with author name order in many of your citations. Elyssafaison (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

On her father's profession, most articles said he was an architect, not a professor. Since the original article didn't provide any citation for the professor claim, I took it out. I can add it back in, but I thought changing it to a substantiated claim would be best practice. I'll look at breaking some of those sentences up. I see how they could be clearer as separate statements. I'll fix all the awkward phrases as well. I will also go back and edit the citations. I was using Wikipedia's generator and thought I didn't need chapter information because there was no box for it. I didn't notice the name order issue. Thank you for pointing these out! Patrickortez (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the suggested phrases, plus a few others that I found. I've corrected all the citations except for Red Love and Turning Pages, which I need to get from the library. Patrickortez (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments March 3
Some word choice issues: In the sentence “Her story was endorsed by Tsubouchi Shōyō, paving her way to further publication,” the phrase “paving the way to further publication” is vague and awkward. Say “Heavily” censored instead of “strongly”. Should be “sending her health into decline.” Also, her health declined gradually “after” (not “since”) her heat stroke. Change name order for citation with author Ruth Barraclough. Also, you need to cite the specific chapters you are using in this anthology (and note that Barraclough is one of three editors to this volume, so all should be listed as editors in your citation). [NOTE: I see you say you will address this; you should not need to go to the library to fix it. All the information you need should be in the OU libraries online catalog, or even check amazon.] In the Political and Social Views section, I do not understand what is meant by communists believing that imperial power structures survive only on surplus labor. This sounds like a paraphrase that went a little off. Check your source again, and/or let’s discuss what it means. Communists also believed that capitalist systems operate based on surplus labor, so I’m not sure what the distinction is meant to be.

You’ve done a great job with this. There is still a little more cleaning up to do, but then you will be ready to move it to main space. Elyssafaison (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments March 7
Excellent work! There is one place where you say "preferred the former" where it would be more clear to simply say "preferred anarchism," but other than that, I think you are ready to move into the main space! Elyssafaison (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)