Wikipedia:Peer review/Minamata disease/archive1

Minamata disease[edit]

I've been working on this article for the last few months after reading several books on the subject. I've been including information as I see fit, but before I develop the article further I would like to get some critical review of how I'm getting on so far.

In particular, I would like people to comment on the following:

How is the level of detail in the article? Is it too detailed for an encyclopedia article? Should I break more sections out into separate articles as I've done with the 1959 compensation agreements and Niigata Minamata disease?
What do you think about the article's structure and subheadings? (the history section is long and makes up most of the article currently)
What are the images like? Particularly, are the fair-use images taken by W. Eugene Smith used with a sufficient fair-use rationale?
Is the formatting of the footnotes ok? Am I depending too much on only a few references?

Any comments or guidance would me much appreciated! Bobo12345 10:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, which unfortunately is all I have time for right now, the article is very impressive. I have two (Smith-irrelevant) illustration criticisms, though. First, the picture of waste coming out of a pipe isn't clearly labeled as from Minamata and immediately (because it's new enough to be in color) looks as if it isn't: a click on the link shows that indeed it's from the other side of the Pacific. Secondly, the book by Kuwabara is presented as if to suggest that it predated Smith's work; although the photo within the cover may indeed predate Smith (I don't know offhand as my copy of the book isn't with me), the book is very recent, as will be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the kanji along the top (let alone clicks the link). So I'd recommend removing both. If I find a "fair-usable" pre-Smith image, I'll be in touch. And I'll return to the article later. -- Hoary 11:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking the article over. With regard to the wastewater discharge photo, the one currently in use is a public domain photo I found on a US government website. I had originally uploaded one of Smith's photos (see right), but an editor complained that the fair-use rationale didn't stand up. I would dearly love to use Smith's photo as it illustrates the article much better than the modern equivalent, as you say. Do you think the fair-use rationale could be supported? The new version of the photo I uploaded is smaller in resolution (only 250px tall) than the one that was deleted.

Secondly, I've removed the Kuwabara book cover image as you suggested. I didn't realise it was a more modern edition! Bobo12345 11:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, I would add more to the mercury image caption, i.e. how it relates to the article and I would either find the reference for the missing citation (or move the sentence to the talk page). Lastly, my browser shows eight of these square boxes "窒" (four in one part and three in another) in the first sentence? --Sadi Carnot 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I've added a little more detail to the mercury image caption and moved the unsourced sentence to the Talk page, as you suggested. I've also made a request over at the Chemicals WikiProject for an image of the causative compound itself (methylmercury) to include or replace the image. As for the square boxes, I imagine that is because your web browser doesn't show Japanese characters properly. Take a look at the help page on the issue. Bobo12345 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A newish browser intended for general use will show Japanese characters automatically if the OS allows this (and most computer OSes now in use do) and if a font for Japanese is installed. Just one of these fonts takes up four megabytes or so; if you can't read Japanese script and don't much want to learn, I suggest that you don't lumber your computer with it. Just put up with the "boxes": understanding their content isn't (or shouldn't be) necessary in order to understand the article. -- Hoary 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confessing that I only gave it one brief glance, I suggest you rework the Reference section. There's no need to fully cite a source every time you refer to it. Consider working along the lines of Boshin War or other history articles. Items in "References" should not be in "Further reading." After another quick glance:

Some of the subsubsections in History are rather short. Perhaps you could merge them?
With all that detail in History broken in so many subsections, you could perhaps just remove the History heading and promote the subsections to sections. That's a judgment call, though.
Some sub/sections go unsourced. That won't do. And the density of inline-citations is uneven.
A "See also" section is only needed for terms not wikilinked in the article itself. Perhaps you could mention Ontario Minamata disease in the main text and then remove that "See also" section entirely.
In general, it seems the only words in an article that should be in boldface are the first instance of the topic and variants of the topic's name. Things like "Hot House" and "Minamata Fishing Cooperative" probably should not be bold.
I'm not sure what the style guide says on this, but there seem to be a lot of red-links. Perhaps some could be removed?--Monocrat 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I'll address them over the next few days. Bobo12345 10:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article, making a fair number of small changes and adding questions and small requests in  SGML comments. But those aside, I'm sorry to have to say that this is too long. Yes, everything in it is worth saying, but it's not all worth saying there. One obvious example is the description of the photo by Smith: yes, by all means describe it (briefly, in one clause) and summarize its impact, but relegate everything else about it to its own article. A second starting point for trimming is George's theory that Minamata helped democratize Japan: I find the argument (as it's presented in the article) very vague and unconvincing, peculiarly so in view of the space given to it (and the obvious continuing disregard of the state for those incarcerated for the quasi-crime of having Hansen's disease, for Koreans and others forced into prostitution, etc etc). -- Hoary 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments:

I've made one read-through of the article. Up to the section entitled "The second solution, 1969-1973", I found the article totally fascinating. Then, it was like running into a brick wall. I found myself skipping paragraphs and then entire sections before catching myself and realizing that I was supposed to be reviewing the article and going back (although I grudgingly admit I gave up making it through much of that portion). There is way, way, way too much detail there. I'll throw out an example paragraph taken directly from the article:

These direct negotiations in Tokyo were exhausting. On December 8, Kawamoto, a leader in the direct negotiations group, began by asking Shimada, a Chisso executive, to pledge in their blood to come to an agreement and treat each other as human beings. Shimada refused. The negotiations lasted through much of the night, ending with Shimada collapsing and being taken to the hospital. The Minamata patients were told to go home, and when Shimada was able to negotiate again, he would do so in Minamata. However, the patients remained in the Chisso headquarters. By December 25, only two patients remained in Tokyo, Kawamoto and Sato. Chisso Executive Director Kuga, approached them and asked them to take some money and buy tickets back to Minamata. Kawamoto and Sato refused unless Chisso agreed to direct negotiations. They were thrown out to the unsightly tented settlement outside the building.

It's interesting in its own right, but is it that necessary to go into such detail in an article about Minimata disease? Consider taking large portions of this section and splitting them into sub-articles for readers who want that level of detail. There also seems to be a disturbing lack of references for this portion of the article, simply one reference to a book on the history of Minimata disease.

In most of the article, currency is given in japanese yen with conversions to US Dollars. However, some sections of the article only give $USD.
Some sections are unreferenced.

Hope that helps. Neil916 (Talk) 09:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving the article such a thorough read-through! Actually, the "Second solution, 1969-1973" section was written by another editor, but I decided to get a peer review on my work up to that point before tackling the rest of the article. When I get the time, I'm planning to go over the article again and remove some of the content to sub-articles, as you suggest. Cheers. Bobo12345 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]