User talk:Charstutz/sandbox

Hi Charlotte! Going to get this in the right spot this time! Did change a few bits, but still unsure about the lead. I did get into the chart you added. Hope this helps! Historyfan323 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer review This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review. General info • Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) o Charstutz • Link to draft you're reviewing: o User:Charstutz/Tokaimura nuclear accident Lead Guiding questions: • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? o I'm not sure if the lead is in this draft/being edited or not. If not, then it hasn't. If it is (and is in the space between the infobox and the contents), then it definitely has. • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? o Yes, if it isn't in the draft. If it is in the draft, then there is not really an introductory sentence that gets right to the topic of the article. • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? o Not really, the lead (as it is in the original article) does not say anything apart from the one sentence explaining that there were two accidents at the site. If the lead is the section between the infobox and the contents, then it still really does not. • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? o No (if the one in the original article). If it is the previously mentioned section, then it does contain quite a bit of information not present in the article. • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? o The original lead is technically neither-it needs more detail about sections of the article. If the lead is the previously mentioned section, than it is too detailed. Quite a bit of the information would probably be better in its own section in the article. Lead evaluation The lead does not appear to have been edited at all (if it is not in the draft). If it is the section between the infobox and contents, then it is definitely too detailed. Quite a bit of the information--basically all of the little sections except for the one titled "The Nuclear Accidents"--should probably be in its own section, maybe one with general background information about the nuclear plant. That forth section would work as a lead, with a couple more sentences talking about the causes, evacuations, and aftermaths of the two incidents. Overall, though, I am still confused as to whether the lead is even in the draft or not. Content Guiding questions: • Is the content added relevant to the topic? o Yes. I am a little less certain about the "Background" section's relevance, but it is at least somewhat relevant. • Is the content added up-to-date? o I am not sure. The one new source I can clearly identify was published in 2000, but other sources all seem to come from around that time frame anyway. • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? o The "Background" section talks about Japan's relationship with nuclear energy rather generally, and while I can see that fitting with the article, I keep thinking it doesn't quite fit. Also, there is quite a bit more information regarding the 1999 incident than there is for the 1997 incident. It would be nice to see a bit more information about the earlier incident, if such information exists. Content evaluation I am wondering if there are sources available that are more recent than the early 2000s or not--if there are, it would be nice to see some used. There is also a bit of an imbalance in the content presented about the two incidents. Other than that, the content that has been added does considerably improve the article. I particularly like the timeline table for the 1999 incident (which is captioned as being for the 1997 incident). Tone and Balance Guiding questions: • Is the content added neutral? o The first sentence in the "Aftermath" section for the 1999 incident could be a little biased. Apart from that, the new content reads as neutral. • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? o No, nothing appears to to be heavily biased, but there is a sentence (see previous) that might be a tiny bit suspect. • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? o I am having a bit of a hard time trying to pick out the different viewpoints, but as far as what I can identify, there does not appear to be any imbalance • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? o I don't think so. Tone and balance evaluation For the most part, the tone is neutral and viewpoints are fairly balanced (as far as I can tell). I am unsure if it is a good thing or not that I am having a hard time picking out the different viewpoints or not. There is also a slightly suspect first sentence in the "Aftermath" section for the 1999 incident that sort of implies that neither government nor company officials were rather incompetent (whether true or not). I think there is probably a way to get point across about how chaotic the situation was without such an implication. However, the majority of the content is fine. Sources and References Guiding questions: • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? o As far as I can tell, yes. They all seem to be solid sources • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? o I'm not sure what the extent of the available literature is, but there are a wide variety of sources, so I would assume so. • Are the sources current? o Most of them appear to be from the early 2000, but I also do not know what the more recent research on the subject is like or if there is any that isn't problematic. • Check a few links. Do they work? o I checked a couple of what I assumed were links to sources (they were in the references) and found that the were links to wikipedia pages on the publishing entities. However, I also think those were not additions made with this draft. I also realized that there are article links that work in the original article, and that they probably didn't transfer over. o I did check the one source-related link I knew had been added, and it worked and linked directly to the article being cited. I also tried a couple of the links within the article to other articles, and they all worked. Sources and references evaluation I am unsure if the fact that most of the sources used (including the one I know was recently added) date to the early 2000s is a case of the available variety of literature or not. If it is not, though, then there should be a couple of more recent sources added. The one link to a source that was added/seemed to transfer into the sandbox all the way worked very well (and led directly to the cited article), and the links within the article all seem to work. Organization Guiding questions: • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? o The content that does not concern the technicalities of either incident is clear and easy to read. However, I was quite confused by the technical terminology--I think I got the gist of it, but it is still confusing. Some of the added content does make things a bit more understandable though. • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? o To the best of my knowledge, no • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? o It is very well organized, even if a couple of sections/subsections should probably be moved. Organization evaluation The more technological bits are quite confusing to someone who knows very little about the subject matter. It makes a little more sense in this draft than in the original article, but personally, I'm still a bit confused. Other than that, the content added is very well-organized and the non-technical bits were quite clear and easy to read. Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? o If the chart with the timeline counts as images/media added, then it does help by giving a general "what happened with the incident itself" • Are images well-captioned? o The chart previously referenced is captioned/titled as being for the 1997 incident, but the dates in the chart are for 1999. • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? o Not an image (I don't think) so not really applicable • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? o The chart is nice and clear (other than the year discrepancy). Images and media evaluation

   The chart is really nice for summing up what happened when you also get into the details of the incident (assuming the chart is actually for the 1999 incident).

For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. • Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? • Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions: • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? o Yes, the additional background information is very helpful in setting up the two incidents. However, there is still quite a bit less information present about the 1997 incident than the 1999 incident. • What are the strengths of the content added? o It does help make some of the more technical bits a bit more understandable. It also provides important (and previously missing) background information about the plant itself, which helps put the two incidents in context. The chart also provides a good summary of one of the incidents (not 100% sure which incident it is for). • How can the content added be improved? o A few of the background sections should be moved around--they appear to possibly be part of the lead, and they should be in their own section. Also, some of the citations are a little hard to find, and clarity in what/where they are would be very helpful. More information (if available) on the 1997 incident would also be nice. Overall evaluation In general, the added content has improved the overall article quality in several ways. The new background info helps set the stage for the two incidents, even if some of it should be moved slightly, and there are also bits and pieces that make some of the more complicated terminology a bit easier to understand. More content about the 1997 incident (if possible) would make the article even better.

Review by Hannah F.

Lead Guiding questions: • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/a • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? n/a • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? n/a • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? n/a

Lead evaluation Hi Charlotte, sorry but I'm unsure of where your lead is!

Content Guiding questions: • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I thought the addition of the background information contributed to the overall helpfulness of the article. • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I could see.

Content evaluation Overall, I feel like all of the information added before the 1997 explosion helps give good background information to what the article initially held. Tone and Balance Guiding questions: • Is the content added neutral? For the most part, yes. Maybe rewrite a few of the sentences in the background section about the hazards of radiation. • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe some more discussion on the companies and their interests in nuclear radiation would help make the article more neutral. • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?. No. Tone and balance evaluation Overall it seems fairly neutral, but I would add some more information about some of the possible benefits of nuclear energy just to give the opposite side a little bit more of a say.

Sources and References Guiding questions: • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I'm a little unsure of which sources you added as I can't see where you put in more sources. • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources that are there, though, seem pretty thorough. • Are the sources current? There are some current sources, yes. • Check a few links. Do they work? Source 7 did not appear to work, but the others did. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions: • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The only error I saw was "this mixture is carefully conductedi n...." • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization is one of the best parts of the article. Organization evaluation Overall, the organization with the added sections and the table helps make the article more clear and with better background information.

Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images but the table is helpful • Are images well-captioned? n/a • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a Images and media evaluation I thought the addition of the table helps the look of the article a great deal. For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions: • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is a lot more complete with the addition of all the background information, more sections, and the table. • What are the strengths of the content added? It helps round out the article based on what it was previously so reading the article makes more sense in its entirety. • How can the content added be improved? Maybe some images, a clear lead, and the addition of sources to the background information sections you added. Overall evaluation Overall, the article is looking great! I like a lot of the sections you added and if someone were to read just what the article was before, they would not get as clear of information on the events.

Berezki (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Instructor feedback

Hi Charlotte, Let's plan to have a zoom meeting to talk through your article. Your peer reviewers have pointed out that the lead is not clear in terms of what is the lead and what is part of the article. I assume you are revising the article on "Tokaimura nuclear accident," but a lot of the way you have your article structures in your sandbox makes it look like an article on Tokaimura nuclear power plants more generally. Need to be clear about the focus of the piece. The standard way to write the town name is "Tokaimura," without any hyphen. I'm not seeing where you have added any sources; I found at least one at the Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus (online journal), but you have to dig for it. Search "Tokaimura" as a keyword, then go through the articles and do a find command to see where the word pops up. Some of the references will only be a sentence long and will not help you much, but there is at least one article that contains several paragraphs description of one of the nuclear accidents. Elyssafaison (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructor comments 2020: Additional

You’ve done a great deal of work on this, and I think it reads really well. You have managed to leave in enough of the technical details to give important specificity, but have also reworked the narrative so it is interesting and comprehensible to those of us without that kind of technical knowledge. Here are some comments based on a read of everything in your sandbox so far:

I still think you could rethink the lead and beginning paragraphs a bit based on our discussion. Needs proof-reading for a few minor problems scattered throughout. I’ll look forward to seeing citations when you are able to get them in.

1997 Incident: Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto criticized the delayed report of the fire to authorities after the event instead conducting their own inspection. Donen facility officials initially reported an elevation of 20 percent increased radiaiton levels in the area surrounding the reprocessing plant but later revealed the true percent was ten times higher. The opportunity to correct the flaws leading to this event and preventing future incidents was not seized by the facility potentially leading to a more serious issues two years later.

First sentence here starting with “Prime Minister…..” does not read. Rewrite for clarity. Last sentence above is in passive voice; also “potentially leading to” seems vague. Did the failure to correct lead to the next disaster?

1999 Incident, last sentence: “This process inadvertently contributed to creating a critical mass level incidents triggering chain reactions over the next several hours.” Is “incident” supposed to be singular?

“STA” is referred to three times in the article (once in a box), but you never tell us what it stands for or what it is.

This is not mandatory, but it would be great if you could expand the following statement by a few sentences to provide more information, since it is the part that is arguably most closely related to our course content:

“This event became the focus of antinuclear activists to promote organized movement against nuclear energy in Japan. To this day, the tensions between the need for produced power outside of nonexistent natural resources and the safety of the nation’s population still remain.”

Elyssafaison (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructor comments 2020: Third Round

This is looking really great, but still needs a thorough proof read.

Please go through it very carefully to make sure all the sentences have clear syntax, you have used prepositions correctly, you are watching out for repetition, etc.

Do not use colons at the end of section names. First section has missing prepositions among other things. Still have a parenthetical reference to Ryan sitting next to a footnote. Later, “The mixture is carefully transported to a specially-crafted buffer tank. The mixture is carefully conducted in this buffer tank designed to prevent fission to criticality.” Repetition of “The mixture is carefully….” should be avoided. “….mixture of ammonia and formal to produce a solid” ??? Next sentence after this one also has something wrong with it.

“The Nuclear Accidents”: Second sentence needs to be split in two. “The 1997 incident resulted in the exposure of 119 people to radiation….” Extra preposition in last sentence.

1997 Accident section also has proofing errors throughout. Get rid of extraneous/repetitive words in the following sentences (and probably others): “The company leadership did not immediately report the fire, instead conducting….” “…the Donen nuclear fuel reprocessing plant closed until November…..”

You cannot use citation #8 (Wikiwand). Have a look at it and be able to tell me why not.

This sentence still needs a rewrite: “Later Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto criticized the delay allowing radiation to continue to impact local areas.” The problem is that you can read this sentence to mean that Hashimoto’s criticism was the thing that caused the delay. To fix it, say “Later PM Hashimoto criticized the delay that allowed radiation to continue….”

Great additional sentences at the very end (but change “has lead” to “has led”).

Substantively you have made significant improvements. The remaining revisions should focus mostly on style. When you’ve gone through it carefully let me know and I’ll take one last look. Let me know if you have any questions (especially about Wikiwand).

Elyssafaison (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)