Talk:Unexpected Destinations

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 20:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the first biography of the first Japanese woman to earn a college degree was written by her great-granddaughter, who also studied abroad in the U.S.? Source: "Kuno's experience as a student for a year at an American college gives the narrative an added perspective, as does her dual capacity as Sutematsu's biographer and great-granddaughter." -- Goff, Janet (1994). "History -- Unexpected Destinations: The Poignant Story of Japan's First Vassar Graduate by Akiko Kuno and translated by Kirsten McIvor". Japan Quarterly. 41 (3): 358. "Unexpected Destinations is the biography of the first Japanese woman apparently to graduate from any college anywhere." -- W., G. (1 September 1993). "She Was A First for Japan". Vassar Quarterly. LXXXIX (4): 33.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Corinne Rey-Bellet

Created by LEvalyn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was nominated for DYK within 7 days of creation. No issues with length. Good faith is assumed on print sources. Earwig picked up an unlikely copyright violation of 21.9%, mostly from the title of of the book. The summary needs more sources since it deals with real-life people and events. QPQ is done; the hook drew me in so I think it's good! Minor suggestions that doesn't affect DYK eligibility but can be made to the article: Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, and Kodansha all have articles on the English Wikipedia and can be piped in the sources; the infobox has fields for publishers, page numbers, ISBN, and release dates, so those can quickly be filled in. lullabying (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

lullabying, thanks for taking a look! I appreciate your suggestions for polishing, but I disagree that the summary needs more sources. The synopses in book articles are implicitly cited to the book itself, following the conventions at WP:NOVELPLOT; secondary sources would be a bit odd. I've basically summarized each chapter in a sentence or clause, in the order that they appear in the book, so I don’t think there’s anything that needs an additional source. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:NOVELPLOT only applies to fiction though, and the article seems to be about a biography, with real-life people and real-life events involved. lullabying (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, but I added the citation to the book anyway. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The top of the page for WP:NOVELPLOT says it's about literary fiction, and which doesn't seem to be the case for this book. The source you listed is a primary source — do you have any secondary sources for the summary? lullabying (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The instructions for non-fiction books at WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article links to WP:PLOTCITE (about fiction) for guidance, which says All interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source. Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself. ... Plot summaries written purely from other summaries risk excessive loss of context and detail. The book itself is my source for what the book says. The secondary sources have much shorter and vaguer summaries, whereas my summary follows the table of contents to present the key concept of each chapter in order. (You might note that it's entirely different from Daughters of the Samurai). I have written a lot of book articles, and it's considered best practice to completely avoid secondary citations in the synopsis, because the synopsis ought to contain only non-interpretive material verified by the book itself. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good to go. I assume good faith on printed sources. I have no other concerns that need to be addressed. lullabying (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Information about author

There's some biographical info about Kuno here which could be used to add a section on the author's background. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unexpected Destinations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)