Wikipedia:Peer review/The Rape of Nanking (book)/archive2

The Rape of Nanking (book)
Preparing the article for FAC. Please check for any WP:MOS problems. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review: Peer review/The Rape of Nanking (book)/archive1

Comments by BillDeanCarter
Well, writing about this book is definitely a worthy endeavor albeit a horrific topic. It makes me wonder how many terrible massacres have occurred throughout human history, and especially most recently. My comments are: Overall excellent and really the only issues are with the lede, and you definitely know this topic inside out. Best of luck as you proceed towards FA.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The lede should state where the massacre took place right away, which is in the then capital of the Republic of China. Perhaps copy something out of the Nanking Massacre article. Also maybe mention the historical context of this massacre. Was it the only massacre done by the Japanese Army. Also, why were they doing it? Why were they there? Maybe even convey what the book revealed that had been forgotten. Although this article's about the book, it presents important facts and you want the lede to basically give the reader a complete picture. So because the history is so important, the lede should tell you more about it.
 * Also, mention in the lede how Chang took her own life which is sad.
 * See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences. The punctuation doesn't conform throughout the article, starting with In the introduction of The Rape of Nanking, she wrote that throughout her childhood, the Nanking Massacre "remained buried in the back of [her] mind as a metaphor for unspeakable evil."
 * Why didn't The San Francisco Chronicle publish her rebuttal? Was it cowardice or something else? Surely, they should have. Who did publish it?
 * In the lede mention that the book was published in English, and that a Japanese language edition was never published due to the controversial publishing practices, and Chang's refusal to submit to them.
 * Thanks for the comments, especially about how to use quotes - that has always been confusing to me but was one thing I was too lazy to go and read about. I'll see about implementing the changes you suggested and reply again later.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by John Smith's
I would personally not mention Chang's suicide in the lead, though it may be relevant somewhere else. If I'm right she was so traumatised by the research on the massacre that it was the main reason she "lost it" in her last years?

I would propose merging the criticism section with the "reponse to criticism" bit. The critical review mentioned in the latter is confusing to lead off a section titled "response". Put that review in criticism and then have a sub-heading for the attempted response. It slots in much better that way. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)