User talk:Chaseander/sandbox/Ueno Chizuko

Peer Review

The lead section is clear and easy to understand, but I find it quite short. It may be best to add some more information pertaining to each of your main points in the article. I see no issues with the general structure, though the format is a bit strange in the “Academic career” section as there is some out of place spacing in the middle. The article seems balanced and nothing appears to be given any notably special attention over the other topics. It did seem quite brief, though.

The article seems neutral to me. There is some bias, but most all of it comes from Ueno Chizuko’s thoughts and not from you. From what I understand this should be fine. I may be mistaken, but the lead section may also appear slightly biased at the end of the first sentence with the title “best-known feminist.”

I find the sources questionable in some cases. From what I was told, using sources by the person the article is discussing may not be acceptable. While this is my understanding, it may be better to discuss this with Dr. Faison to be certain. Several of the sources appear to be reliable, though. My primary concern lies with the sources in which Chizuko Ueno herself is the source.

I have some minor corrections to make as well. I may be wrong, though I do not believe “lecturer” and “associate professor” in the “Academic career” section should be capitalized. The second portion of the “Academic career” section also has a few errors. Consider changing the first sentence to past tense if she is no longer in the position, though if she is you may consider restructuring the second sentence to clarify that. There should also be a space after Ritsumeikan University is mentioned in the same section. Also consider checking the capitalization in your section titles, though I am not certain on how important this is on Wikipedia articles.

Despite being brief, the article was very informative and clear. I think your article is off to a good start!

--Rums00 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments

Somehow the word “difficulty” snuck in after Zengakuren in the early life section. In “academic career” section you might explain wiat WAN is/does. In the scholarship and views section, please change the name order for MIZUTANI Noriko. (I realize you did not put the name in that way, but this is an opportunity to correct it.)

The small changes you have made here and there are good and appropriate, but there is undoubtedly a lot more content you could add to this article. So far it looks like you have mostly done some tweaking around the edges.

Kaycee notes some issues with some of the pre-existing sources. The one I particularly have a problem with is reference #1, which is a strange page on the person website of a Penn State U. affiliated person (I think a professor). The information on that page is not cited and it is not clear where or who it comes from. If you want to keep information currently in the article that comes from that page, you would do well to find other sources to cite. With regard to citing Ueno’s own writings, as we discussed this is not generally looked upon favorably for Wikipedia articles, but as long as you are not drawing large amounts of content from those primary sources you are probably fine. It is less me who will police that issue, and more the rest of the Wikipedia editorial community. Elyssafaison (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

Starting off, the most helpful critique I received was regarding the first source I used, which both reviewers called attention to. I plan to remove that source, or perhaps find out where that source got its information and use the original source instead. I also plan to go over and more deeply investigate all of the pre-existing sources from the article, since I'm actually not familiar with them, and they might benefit from some curating. However, I do plan on leaving self-reported sources by Ueno in the article when I think it makes sense to do so; I think there is a difference between writing "Ueno is a certain way because she writes that she is so" and "Ueno believes X, Y, and Z, and we know this because she wrote a paper about it".

The aforementioned critiques on sources, as well as the general length of the article, are two major points I want to work on with regards to improving this article. The better-curating of sources is straightforward, and I think I can complete that by simply investigating them. However, lengthening the article is more complex, since I truly believe I exhausted the useful information regarding Ueno's biography. Nonetheless, I do think there is more room to expand the sections on her work and academic profile, and perhaps even reformat the page if I see fit.

Furthermore, the formatting and editing quirks (such as removing stray words and reversing name orders) are minor tasks that I of course intend to rectify.

I have no qualms with the peer review process, and I think it is working just fine.

Chaseander (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Instructor comments March 3

Looks like not much has changed since I last looked, and since you wrote your peer review response. One thing I missed the first time around: In the academic career section, not what the invitation from University of Tokyo was for. I presume it was an offer of a teaching job. Elyssafaison (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)