User talk:Rums00/New Women's Association

Peer Review: Lead
This lead section is good. It provides a nice overview of the topic and its importance. It's a little on the short side. Two pieces of information that might be good to pull up are the year of its disbandment (so that someone who only reads the lead section understands that this is no longer an active organization) and the snippet about their being the first to raise the issue of women's suffrage. Other than that, it's very clear and concise. Patrickortez (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Structure
The structure of this article is really solid. I think the sequence of Purpose-History-Criticism is a particularly helpful way to go through it. Patrickortez (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Balance
This article is well-balanced. I especially like how the Purpose and Criticisms section balance each other. The History section is appropriately thorough. The "Notable" sections felt a tad short, but they didn't strike me as missing anything, so it's probably fine. Overall, a well-balanced article. Patrickortez (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Neutrality
This article is very neutral. As I mentioned, I like the way the Purpose and Criticism sections balance each other. No sentences stuck out as biased or making any kind of argument. Patrickortez (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Sources
The sources are reliable. It looks like all of them are from peer-reviewed journals/university presses. Every claim has an in-line citation. The Garon book is frequently cited, but I don't think in a way that is problematic. Overall, this looks like a reliable article. Patrickortez (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Other
The last sentence of "Notable Accomplishments" is ambiguous. It sounds like they removed women's ability to attend political meetings. Patrickortez (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate to refer to all people in this article by their last names. Patrickortez (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments
This is a significant improvement from the original article. Here are some editorial comments: In the first paragraph of the “Purpose” section you name three key leaders of the group in the fourth sentence. Since they are mentioned for the first time in this paragraph, this would be the place to give their full names, and to link those names to their Wikipedia articles if they have them. Please note that Oku Mumeo’s family name is “Oku”.

It appears that Wikipedia has the name order NOT in Japanese fashion for both Hiratsuka and Ichikawa (though they have it right for Oku, which is probably why you used her given name by mistake in your earlier section). I will ask Shalor Toncray to correct these on Wikipedia.

In the “history section” you refer to the “former Bluestockings” without explaining what that means. In the “criticism” section you say Yamakawa and Ito were former Bluestockings. Does your source (Mackie) really say that? I am aware that they published essays in the Bluestockings journal, but my understanding is that both of them were critcial of the Bluestockings and that they were not considered members of the group. If Mackie says otherwise you can leave it in and let me know. Also here you link “Bluestockings” to its article, but that link should probably come at first mention of the group earlier in your article. The last sentence of the “Criticsm” section is awkward: you refer to the Red Wave Society as a “major critic”, which is an awkward construction since it is an organization not a person.

Under Notable Accomplishments you say the NWA was the first to raise awareness of the issue of women’s suffrage. The first WHAT? The first organization? The first women’s organization?

I am in agreement with the comments left for you from Patrick. Great work! Elyssafaison (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer and Instructor Reviews
Thank you both for your feedback!

The suggestions on what to add to the lead section were very helpful! I will add both of those things to the section and see if I can potentially pull up some other relevant information from the article. I also agree with the statement about the last sentence of the “Notable Accomplishments” section being ambiguous. After rereading it I can see that it is confusing and vague, so I will adjust it accordingly.

I did not realize that I had been improperly referring to Oku throughout the article! I will adjust this as soon as possible. I will also move the full names and the link for each term and their corresponding articles to the correct places. I will revisit the source for the Bluestocking claim and provide more elaboration on the statement as well. The part in the criticism section was information that I moved from the original version of the article to this one, though. Unfortunately, I cannot currently access the source that this claim originated from; however, I will verify the information from the library’s copy of the book this week and let you know what I find. Thank you for pointing this out to me!

I will also adjust the statement about the Red Wave Society to fit better in the context and clarify my statement in the “Notable Accomplishments” section.

Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful! I will make these corrections as soon as possible.

--Rums00 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments March 3
Here are some further comments, some of which I did not note the first time around: In the “Purpose” section, might be better to say “This law prohibited women from participating….” You link to the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in this section, but my guess is that Garon is referring to the Japan Women’s Christian Temperance Union (also known as Kyofukai); does this Japanese branch of the WCTU have a Wikipedia article you could link to? In the “History” section, perhaps rephrase the sentence about Ichikawa’s departure to make it clear you are referring to her leaving the NWA, not her leaving Japan for the US. Perhaps rename the “Criticism” section to reflect what is being criticized; maybe “Critics of the NWA”? You are still referring to the Red Wave Society as a “critic”; change the phrasing. It is especially odd since you have already discussed the criticisms of Yamakawa Kikue, and she was one of the central figures in the Red Wave Society. Finally, I am not sure you need the “Notable Accomplishments” section. It largely repeats what is already in the lead, and seems to work best in that location. Perhaps move anything important up to the lead and get rid of the section here at the end. Looks really good…You are very close to being publishable! Elyssafaison (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)