Talk:Yoko Matsuoka (writer)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 02:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for picking her article up Viriditas. I look forward to working with you to improve it. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Lead

• I love full leads like this, and IIRC, this is your signature style (if I'm not misremembering), but I do wonder if at times it comes close to violating criterion 3b. I doubt anyone is going to ding you on this, but it was something I was thinking about in my first read through, and it did distract me from your wonderful prose. I suspect that others might dismiss this perspective as overly critical, and I think to some extent that's true, but when I first read the lead I had a running dialogue going in my head (yes, I'm starting to talk to myself in my old age) that went something like this: "SusunW is a great writer who is carefully trying to summarize the main points of the article, but her close attention to the biographical history might run astray of 3b and wander into unnecessary detail." Just so we are clear, no other voice responded in my head. This soliloquy aside, I realize that this kind of excessive detail in the lead is your style, but I also wonder if the reader can be given additional prompts as to why this information is important. Just something to think about, and I'm not asking you to change anything at the moment, but just to consider reading the lead with beginner's mind (pretending you know nothing about the topic) and considering the possibility (just the possibility) that some of this information might not be needed in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I read the lead for a second and third time, and I think it's probably fine. There are a few things that leaped out out me, but I don't think they are that important. I will revisit this again at the end. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think the level of detail only becomes overbearing by third paragraph. I admit, you did a great job summarizing the main points, but I also wonder if you can generalize a bit more rather than providing so many specific details in the lead. I suspect, as I said before, this is a stylistic argument. I don't know why, but there's something about the third lead paragraph that almost makes my eyes gloss over with its specificity. I feel like I am experiencing a form of information overload from the level of detail. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Again, I don't think you need to change anything, but I do wonder how other readers see it. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I've reworked it. Better? SusunW (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Much. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• On her way home to Japan when World War II began

• Link to World War II here, or no? Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think not. In the body I linked it to Britain's declaration because it was relevant, but think is overlink here. SusunW (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. Viriditas (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I've been criticized before for linking WWI or WWII with the logic that they are too well known to need a link. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• she worked as an editor at the Japanese office of Reader's Digest and began working as an interpreter and translator for foreign correspondents

• The only reason I would recommend linking to foreign correspondents is because the idea might be viewed as archaic to younger people or those not familiar with the history and language of journalism. It's fine if you don't, of course. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• done SusunW (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The club members actively opposed militarism and fought for socio-economic parity for women.

• Consider linking Antimilitarism to opposed militarism, here or elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Link to socio-economic parity? Perhaps Gender equality or something else? Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Both done. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• When her leftist associations began to impact her ability to publish

• I think a lot of younger people might not be familiar with what this means or entails. If this "impact" refers to the Second red scare, then consider linking to it. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• done. SusunW (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: my only complaint about the lead at this point is that it doesn't mention any of her positions vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, of which she was a staunch critic. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hmmm, it says "She was an outspoken critic of the Cold War superpowers", too vague? I thought that it made it clear that she spread her opposition evenly to both sides. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Early life and education

• They began making preparations in 1931 for her to go to Cleveland, Ohio with an American missionary

• You're missing a comma after Ohio. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• done SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Matsuoka's parents were progressive and unorthodox, choosing not to believe in traditional superstitions.

• Should you link to Japanese superstitions here? Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Lovely! Thanks for finding that. Added. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• The sisters were raised as Christians, although for significant celebrations, such as weddings or funerals, the family followed Shinto rites

• Link to Christianity in Japan? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Again, thanks. Searching in WP for me is not intuitive. Even though we have that "common name" rule, it is far easier to find an article for me through a google search. Added. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• The sisters also attended a Sunday school run by American missionaries, to learn English

• This sentence bothers me because I have to wait until the end to find out what the sisters are doing in Sunday school. Have you played around with different ways of writing it? "The sisters also learned English at a Sunday school run by American missionaries." Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Good, changed. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Early activism

Career

• When offered a job at the Reader's Digest in November

• You don't need to use "the" here. The convention when referring to Reader's Digest (specifically) is to drop the definite article. I see that someone chose to do the opposite in our article on Reader's Digest, which somewhat contradicts the style over at Trusted Media Brands. Looking further into this, it appears that some authors have in fact referred to it as "the Reader's Digest" in the literature, but that makes no sense to me, in the same way that we don't refer to "the Time magazine", "the Newsweek", or "the Life magazine". Not sure what the answer is here, but it appears that there are differing views on this. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I love your explanation here. The Life magazine, makes it so clear how silly using "the" is. Deleted. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Chinese student Pearl The-Wei Liu of Hong Kong

• You've got a typo here. Her name is "Pearl Teh-wei Liu".[1] Whether "Wei" should be capitalized or not seems to be a matter of convention and preference, according to the various sources which choose either style. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Fixed. SusunW (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The changes the war brought were already visible as she sailed through the British ports at Colombo (now in Sri Lanka), Singapore, and Hong Kong, before arriving in Shanghai, where she witnessed the different treatment afforded to Chinese people by the Japanese military.

• You're kind of unintentionally burying the lead here. Yes, you go on to further explain what this "different treatment" entails three sentences later, but to me, "different treatment" is far too ambiguous and should be clarified or specified. I understand if you disagree. Just wanted to point it out from my POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Changed it to read aggressive treatment towards Chinese people. To avoid redundancy in the sentence below changed aggression to militancy. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Good job. Viriditas (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Matsuoka, her mother, her sister Reiko, and daughter Seiko fled the bombings in Tokyo

• Link to Bombing of Tokyo? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• done SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• and spent the months prior to the Surrender of Japan in Hanamaki

• I don't think "surrender of Japan" should be capitalized in American English, but I understand if opinions differ. Viriditas (talk)

• fixed. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Upon notification of the approach of the US Army

• The convention is "U.S. Army". Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Unless maybe you are using Chicago Style? Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• changed. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• and she returned to the school briefly

• Do you mean the girls school? If so, maybe prompt the reader as a reminder. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• done. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• The goals of the club were to fight against traditional subordination of women, work for women's socio-economic independence, and to oppose militarism, including mobilizing women to support war

• Forgive me for being slightly confused. The hamster running in the wheel in my head is old and tired. Did the club both oppose militarism and mobilize woman to support war? Or is there a typo here? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• No the military policies forced women into war work. I've changed it to read "oppose militarism, specifically fighting against policies which mobilized women to support war". Better? SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• ...the Reverse Course period of the US-led administration of Japan.

• It's ok to say occupation of Japan! I mean, that's what it was. No issues if you want to call it US-led administration. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• My thought was that an occupation in and of itself doesn't imply that governance is being effected to my mind. Later I called it an occupation, but at this point, I was attempting to convey that the US was forming policy. Perhaps I am wrong and a military occupation always carries with it some measure of administrative control, instead of just providing a stabilizing environment? SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just wanted to make a note that I really enjoyed reading the "Japan 1940–1948" section. Reading what you wrote about Edgar Snow made me visit some of the other links to learn about Matsuoka's role as a translator. I had no idea that Snow, for good or for worse, was essentially instrumental in writing the article where Mao invited Nixon to visit. That's incredible. Thank you again for your efforts here. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• I always think knowing more about the people involved in events help us understand those events better and vice verse. It's all about context. Without an understanding of the people, the events don't make sense and without an understanding of the events, the choices the people made aren't relatable. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• The section on "Japan (1953–1979)" is incredibly dense and packed. I'm not the best expert on readability guidelines and best practices, but my best guess is that the guidelines and other editors would probably ask you to split this into subsections; like you, I'm not a fan of subsections, so I completely understand why you did it this way, but something probably has to change in the future as you've got six paragraphs which might be too much for other readers, I don't know. Just leaving this note here. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• I broke it into two sections. Better? SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• It occurs to me, that one way to think outside the box on this is to see how many different topics you have buried in your current sections. For example, even though you don't have a personal life and an extensive legacy section, I see a lot of personal life material about her husband and daughter and their relationship, as well her overall legacy, that are buried in this larger sections. For example, you say "Matsuoka gained a reputation as a critic of imperialist and militaristic policies"; that's reads like it could be added to the legacy section. One way to increase the readability is to take material out and put it in other (or new) sections. I realize that your style is more of the comprehensive approach, which tends to shy away from this kind of structure, but I did want to leave this note here for future reference. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• This is good advice, thank you. I tend to not separate personal life into a section of its own, as it provides context and in most people's lives isn't lived separately. (Totally get that public figures have a public and private persona, but for most of us, our life is just one big jumble of overlapping roles.) Nonetheless, I've pulled a few points from the body to add to the legacy section. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• Forgive me, but I get the impression you are far too modest about the legacy of Yoko Matsuoka. Whatever you choose to do has no bearing on this review, as I'm trying to finish it now and pass the article. But I wanted to leave you a message that I suspect much more can be said here, and if so, you could also add more about her legacy to the lead. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Like many women in her era her life hasn't really been examined and assessed. Since women's studies as a field didn't emerge until the 1970s and the 1980s-1990s in Asia, women who lived during this period have not typically been studied well. The first academics who began researching women's contributions focused on first wave feminists and catching up thousands of years of history which omitted women. Hopefully someday, the women who pushed for other women to be included in the historical record will themselves become the subjects of researchers. Until then, finding sources which explain her impact are few and far between. (For me personally, writing her was an amazing learning journey. Despite that we lived decades apart and had very different upbringings culturally and economically, she and I have had many similar experiences and things that shaped our world view. Sure there are differences too, but writing about international women always makes me realize how more alike than different people actually are.) SusunW (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining. Just as a note, take a look at what I was able to find for the Olga Hartman#Legacy section. Like you, I ran into the same problem, but I was able to collect the material together by going really deep into sources I never expected to find, such as the Handbook of Zoology (2019), which strangely enough, talked about her legacy! I probably got very lucky, since if I had tried to write the legacy section in 2018, I wouldn't have been able to do it. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• I always hope that publishing an article will in some small way inspire someone else to look further into the person's life and dig deeper. So many of the women I write about have huge gaps in their history and maybe some day, their legacies will be more fully understood. That said, I added a bit, see above. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Selected works

Notes

References

• It looks like you're using a unique reference style, where you cite a primary and a secondary for support, leading to an average of two citations instead of the usual one. I myself dabbled in that style quite some time ago, and I found it was easier on the eyes to fold multiple citations into a single cite, making it easier for readers. Just wanted to mention this. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Because initially it was sourced to her autobiography, I specifically looked for secondary supporting materials anytime I could find them, because you know, WP thinks primary sources are "bad", "unreliable", etc. (Historians, on the other hand, tend to be distrustful/skeptical of other people's interpretations of primary sources and always want to see what the primary record states.) Typically I bundle sources if there are more than 3 citations. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, totally agreed, it's just that I've been down this rabbit hole before, and I think we need a citation format that allows us to do everything you describe, but only to list a single note in the text, once. It's something I've experimented with, but most of the feedback I received was negative when I bundled the citations. I did receive less criticism when I separated the primary and secondary with bullet indents, but that looks sort of weird. Another way that worked for me was to bundle two Harvard notes, one after the other, but keep them linked to the reference section. As you can see, I'm still searching for a new way of doing this. I think we need a new citation format that makes this easier and explicit. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'd love to have an easier citation format, but we don't. I just manually input the information into a template. Have never figured out how to use any ref tools that fill out complete information. It takes me forever to format refs, because I always have many. SusunW (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Plus, those tools don't work so well. No worries, just wanted to discuss this with like-minded people. I've attempted to talk about related topics with template maintainters, and it didn't go so well. They aren't all that interested in what editors want or how they use the templates. Anyway, I will continue with the review. Thanks for indulging me in one of my pet interests. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think for the most part, coders and writers speak different languages. The things that they see as critical are different from what I think are. For example, rarely is a place of publishing given by a citation tool, but if you want to use photos from an article, you must know where it was published. Bundling all the notes for a single statement, or adding a postscript to explain the note is important to me, but Postscript on here has to do with coding. Go figure. The only way to add a postscript to a footnote is just to (bracket) it in the reference section. Ah well, I just work with what I know how to do. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Conceivably, the quote field could be used as a postscript field, but it would take some work to convince the template maintainers, who in my experience, are somewhat hard of hearing, so to speak. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• You have not archived any links. I recommend running IABot to archive your links to prevent future linkrot, a problem that is best addressed proactively. It's good to get in a habit of doing this for all of your articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I am completely inept with WP technology. When I click on your link it says "Login required" and I have no idea what that means. My WP login? Typically, I manually archive weblinks. If a link is to a clipping on newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com or a journal article, I don't archive them. Should I? SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's a good question. I don't have access to the library suite, so I don't know the answer. I will ask elsewhere, and I think I know just the person to ask. As for the login, yes, in the future you would use your WP login. Looking at your article, I don't think you need to run it at the moment since they type of citations you are using aren't the kind to necessarily disappear over time, so you should be okay. Also, if you are manually archiving, that's just as good. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Citations

• Regarding Uhlig 2008, the convention is to list the closest timestamp, which you can find in the transcript. You would note it like this: "Uhlig 2008, 00:11:00". That's just an example, as I couldn't find the actual timestamp, but it's listed in the source transcript you cited. As for McQuiston 1990, the page number is listed in the source. It should appear as "McQuiston 1990, p. D19". Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Fixed McQuiston. No idea if I did Uhlig right. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Images

• Regarding the status of two images, does File:Eleanor Roosevelt lunches with Yoko Matsuoka.jpg and File:Yoko Matsuoka leads protest.jpg meet the claimed copyright exemptions? The other images check out. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I always discuss image licenses with someone else because they are so complex. GRuban is my go-to guy and at the top of the talk is the link to the discussion here. Specifically with regard to the Roosevelt photo, it was first published without a notice in numerous US papers of 26 May 1953, and was not registered per verification with the copyright catalogs. The protest photo was distributed by the AP as a publicity photo and was carried in numerous papers with out any copyright notice, nor was it registered in the 1970 or 1971 periodicals or artworks catalogs. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's helpful. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's Copyvio Detector: 15.3% (false positives)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Review complete: This is an amazing article. Thank you so much for the time, effort, and research you put into this. I think with some restructuring and refocusing you will get it to featured status. Although I have left many notes up above, and emphasized the potential for taking material out of existing sections and placing them in new or existing ones to improve readability, the only major reason I have put this article on hold is because I am confused by this statement (I have also noted it above): "The goals of the club were to fight against traditional subordination of women, work for women's socio-economic independence, and to oppose militarism, including mobilizing women to support war." I think this might be a simple typo, or alternately, perhaps something I have failed to understand in my reading. The club was pacifist and opposed militarism, so mobilizing women to support war didn't make sense to me. I think the context makes it clear you intended to say "the club opposed militarism including the mobilization of women to support war", although even that kind of formulation is confusing to me. Once that is fixed, rewritten or clarified, I will pass this article. Again, thanks for such an incredible look into a slice of history that has been ignored for too long. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Viriditas Thank you so much for your comprehensive review. As always, I enjoyed working with you to improve the article. I may at some point decide to take her to FA and if so, will take on-board the restructuring you suggest. I think I clarified the troublesome sentence above and answered the remaining point, but if not, please ping me and I'll respond. It truly was a joy to research and write her article. To me, her life adds so much our understanding of the events that took place in her era and how they impacted the people trying to live through those times. I appreciate your help in improving the article very much. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)