Talk:Unexpected Destinations/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 02:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 10:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article. I'm reviewing this as part of the May backlog drive, so I'll also be listing this for a more experienced reviewer to come by and take a look at my review. I'll add some initial comments shortly. MCE89 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Review comments now added below. Feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions, and just ping me when you're done addressing the comments. MCE89 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A couple of very minor comments below, but overall the writing is excellent and I don't see any MOS issues. MCE89 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns identified, and my source spot checks didn't turn up any issues. The sources are all sufficiently reliable, and the reference formatting meets GA standards. MCE89 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted below, I think it would be great if the article could briefly cover the book's reception in Japan, but this is only a suggestion and I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA standard for breadth without this. MCE89 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues. MCE89 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues. MCE89 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The only image is the book cover in the infobox, which has the appropriate non-free use rationale. MCE89 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose and general comments

Lead

• positive international relations - Is it possible to be a little more specific here? Was there a particular country or cause (e.g. US-Japan relations etc.) that she focused her attention on?
  • I edited to try to contextualize that, no, actually, she really wasn’t very specific! It was still a pretty new and not universal idea to say “Japan should have international relations, interacting with other countries can be positive”; part of her struggle on her return, honestly, was the backlash against the early Meiji embrace of international relations. I’d say that women’s education and volunteer nursing were her most concrete “international” causes, though this book doesn’t really emphasize the volunteer nursing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Synopsis

• her social involvement in the Rokumeikan - After reading the wikilinked article I’m still not sure I quite understand what this means. Would it be possible to expand on this point a little further?
  • Same vibe as the international relations aspect, I think; it’s a really unique moment of cultural change an tension… I added a little bit more context but don’t want to overwhelm the summary. She did a lot of hosting events that mirrored American or European customs, like charity bazaars, home theatricals of Shakespeare, and piano recitals, often intended to impress foreign dignitaries by showing Japan as modern, “civilized”, and hospitable. They also therefore involved acclimatizing Japanese people to these customs and fostering a cosmopolitan rather than xenophobic attitude toward them. Let me know if you think the gloss I added helps with conveying some of that, or if you have an idea for a better way to put it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Research

• Ōyama foster family the Bacons - Should be Ōyama’s foster family the Bacons
• The red link to Kunitake Kume should be a blue link to Kume Kunitake
  • Fixed both of these, thanks! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Publication and reception

• and went into at least five editions - It might just be me, but this phrasing sounds quite awkward to my ears. Perhaps something more like "at least five editions would go on to be released"?
  • I think this is basically jargon from book history; we talk all the time about books “going into” editions. I’ve rephrased to be more clear & accessible, and was also able to find a specific interesting Japanese edition. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• An article in Vassar Quarterly - The citation here is to the article in Japan Quarterly
  • Oops, good catch! Fixed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• The article doesn’t discuss the Japanese reception for the book - are you aware of any Japanese reviews that could be discussed in this section? It's not something I would insist on and I do think the article satisfies the GA criteria for breadth without this, but a discussion of the book’s reception in Japan would be a very useful addition if you have access to any Japanese reviews.
  • I gave up the first few times I tried this, but spurred by your comment here I tried again, and was able to access a Japanese review! I have added a few points from it, and I am really glad to have that additional perspective in the article now. It may be that a few more of the 1980s Japanese reviews have been digitized, but for now I have asked enough favours of my Japanese-speaking friend with a good university library. Thanks for the push. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Source spot-checks

I’ve had a skim through the book itself and have confirmed that the synopsis is accurate on the points that I spot-checked. My only suggestion would be that it would be good to provide an additional direct citation for the claim that Oyama was the first Japanese woman to earn a university degree, since it's a claim that demands a somewhat higher burden of proof.

Other sources I checked:

• Ref 2 Y all checks out
• Ref 6 Y all checks out
• Ref 15 Y all checks out
• Ref 16 Y all checks out
• Ref 17 Y all checks out

• • For the first college degree aspect, I will need to wait until Thursday when I am reunited with the book. (Unless you can check the chapter about her graduation to see what it says?) I have the sneaking suspicion that Kuno actually undersells it a bit and just says first American university, whereas Janice P. Nimura's later research confirmed it was first university degree of any kind. If Kuno verifies the claim I'll footnote the specific page, if not I'll probably add an explanatory footnote with reference to Nimura to indicate both what this book says and what is now known about her. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@LEvalyn All looks good! I've checked the book and, as you suspected, it describes her as "one of the first Japanese female students to study abroad and the first to graduate from an American college" (p. 7). Adding a footnote with a reference to Nimura's later work makes sense — just let me know when you've done that and I'm happy to pass this. MCE89 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up!! I've now added a note. Using google's "snippet" view I was able to confirm that Nimura's book states that hers was the first college degree of any kind, but I wasn't able to identify the page number; to simplify verification, I cited the note both to Nimura's book as a whole and to a book review which also states this detail. I think we're now all set! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.