Kate-Pure
| This user is a student editor in Indiana_University_Northwest/G369_Modern_Japan_(spring_2018) . |
Welcome! edit
Hello, Kate-Pure, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Assignment edit
Hello, Kate-Pure! Excited to work with you, this is my post as instructed by the professor to write in someone else's box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Vazquez (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Education in the Empire of Japan edit
Hi! I wanted to give you a few notes on the content you added to the article. By large it was good, the only two notes I have are these:
- The sentence "In the time leading up to Japan’s modernization, the Edo period, which lasted between 1603 and 1868, gave limited means of education to the common citizens of Japan." came across a little odd. It flows a little strangely since it isn't clear when it's referring to - the Edo period, or another? Rewording it to "During the Edo period the common citizens of Japan were given limited means of education." This simplifies the sentence and since it links to the overall article for the Edo period, it's not really necessary to describe the Edo era. That's kind of the beauty of Wikipedia, that you don't have to worry about including a lot of information and can generally get to the meat of the discussion. Some context is good, but if it's not needed it can sometimes make things a little less clear.
- Be cautious with sourcing with sites like Facts and Details. From what I can see, it's run by one person and doesn't really seem to undergo any sort of editorial oversight. What this means is that we can't guarantee that the content is correct and doesn't have some sort of error or an interpretation that could be highly subjective. Wikipedia tends to be fairly picky with sourcing, so in order to use it we would have to be able to show that it's routinely cited as a reliable source in academic and scholarly sources. It's generally better to just go with academic and scholarly sources since they're far more likely to pass the reliable source guidelines.
Other than that, the addition looks good! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)