User talk:Wind-up Winter/Joseph Kitagawa

progress on project
How is it going? Do you have some good sources on Joseph Kitagawa yet? You might ask JOhanna Mackay for help in searching for scholarship on a scholar. I imagine when you just search by the Keyterm "Joseph Kitagawa" you come up with a lot of books and articles that he wrote.But if you use the "subject" search term for him, you might surface essays or journal articles on him.

Ziegenbalg66 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What the Article Does Well

 * 1) Not only does your draft have a set formal structure, it actually has one that the parent article currently lacks.
 * 2) The timeline you provide is incredibly clear and evidence-based
 * 3) Your writing style perfectly mirrors the sort found in the best Wikipedia articles (i.e. the ones that rely heavily on exact facts, clarity, and good flow in contrast to speculation, obscurity, and cut-and-paste ethics)
 * 4) Assuming the data provided from your sources is accurate, the ones you do have are perfect for this article (i.e. primary, reviewed, and informationally relevant)
 * 5) Your focus regarding the article is clear: you wish to establish the facts of his life's timeline, his opinions, influences, and death
 * 6) Your full list of sources (on your "Proposed Changes" section) is both impressive and (from what little I know about it) seemingly reliable. However, for the future, include these other sources in the references section of your draft or somewhere else where they can be stored and viewed by others.

Suggested Changes

 * 1) While your heading has potential and is generally accurate, describing Kitagawa as someone "who has written articles and full-length books on topics pertaining to religion" is simply too broad. I suggest, for the first sentence at least, perhaps introducing him as the author of a famous work, or perhaps leaving out the second part of the sentence altogether (just describing his name, date of birth, and general occupation; leaving the finer introductory details for later parts of the heading).
 * 2) In "Early Life," you don't necessarily have to preface your 3rd sentence with "In 'Vocation and Maturity'." Typical Wikipedia convention doesn't usually require such specifiers, as the sources are made evident in the citations at the end of each sentence. I suggest leaving this out entirely and trusting that the reader is intelligent enough to check the cited sources.
 * 3) Substitute "meditating between and among" for just "meditating between" in the 4th sentence of "Early Life." Breaks the flow of the clause.
 * 4) If possible, be more specific with Kitagawa's timeline regarding his move to the U.S. and his internment (i.e. be more specific than "just before WWII" or "the duration of the war")
 * 5) Consider the following excerpt: "Kitagawa's students, both those in his special area of Japanese religion, and in other fields of the history of religions, found academic positions throughout the world, especially in the United States and Japan." Only include this (in a modified form) if you intend to name the students, their works, the fields they advanced, or provide other relevant information. Otherwise, it appears unnecessary and a bit too flowery in its language.
 * 6) Consider the following excerpt: "He is remembered by his colleagues and students as impeccable in dress and manners, a consummate diplomat, and an able and tireless administrator." While there is nothing wrong with describing the more personal aspects of an individual in their article (i.e. their personality, relationships, social life, etc.), including such as an end sentence in an otherwise timeline-based section makes it seem more artistic in its function than factually relevant. If his personal details are of particular note, you can create a separate section for it altogether. If not, you can work it in more organically to a more fitting section.
 * 7) While your sources would appear to be primary and well chosen, the citations don't enable one to easily verify them independently (i.e. there is no direct link or sufficient information to locate free readable editions of the work). I suggest either linking to direct readable copies or providing citations that have more information to locate the pieces indirectly. If neither are possible, feel free to provide me the means to read them myself (I'm willing to reassess the article in light of such new information).
 * 8) Minor spelling, grammatical, and wording errors. Easily fixed with a readthrough and general autocorrect tools.

Most Important Thing(s) To Change

 * The lack of independently verifiable sources.

Applicability Of The Article To My Own

 * Your writing style, focused topic, and use of timelines would be very beneficial to my current draft, which is especially light on the latter two features. Cmanke99 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

suggestions for changes
Hello Wind-up Winter!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Berger. Personally, I like how the original page announces his importance: "Joseph Mitsuo Kitagawa (March 8, 1915 – October 7, 1992) was an eminent Japanese American scholar in religious studies. He was Professor Emeritus and Dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is considered as one of the founders of the field of the history of religions. He is particularly known for his outstanding contributions to the study of religious traditions in Asia and intercultural understanding of the East and the West.[1]"
 * 1) I agree with Cmanke99 that your prose style is perfect for Wikipedia's ambition to be a fact-based encyclopedia.
 * 2) I also appreciate that you found some great sources to fill out more details about Kitagawa's early life.
 * 3) The "lead" paragraph in Wikipedia is really important in that it gives the most important essential facts (in this case, about a person) and provides a kind of sketch of what the article below will do.  See this page on Peter Berger, famous for the theory of the sacred canopy, for a template.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Kitagawa
 * 1) I notice that in the talk page for the original, an editor has located a great picture of Kitagawa, which I encourage you to put into the page.  That would really enhance things quite a bit.


 * 1) a few stylistic comments: 1) Episcopal should be capitalized throughout, 2) the footnote goes to the right of a final period, not to the left 3) periods and commas go within quotation marks," not outside of them". 4) hotlink Joachim Wach, Charles Long, Mircea Eliade, etc. to their Wikipedia pages for readers interested in this lineage/school of religious studies scholars.


 * 1) I see you plan to include more on his scholarly contributiosn and legacy. There's a lot to do there, but a good start would be to read that article by Reynolds and Ludwig and see what you can surmise.

Great work! Thank you for improving Wikipedia!

Ziegenbalg66 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)