Talk:Topaz War Relocation Center/Archive 1

Archive 1

Maintenance / cleanup tags noted on this page

The page is tagged for multiple issues, but I don't think they are all justified.

It's been tagged for:

1. Expansion needed -- I just dropped that, as the article is substantial in size, and is no longer a stub article. If someone wants more, add to the article, or discuss here on the Talk page what should be added.
2. It is missing citations or footnotes. -- There are sources included in the article, including some footnotes and sources listed in "Additional reading" section, but in-line citations would be nice.
3. It needs additional references or sources for verification -- Okay, fine.
4. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims -- I am dropping this one, as it is a vague accusation, and is redundant given other calls for more specific references. If you want to question a particular assertion, please insert a {{fact|date=June 2008}} tag.
5. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. -- Well, still seems like piling it on, but okay.

So i am dropping 2 of the 5 tags. doncram (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

Proxy User has changed the phrase "Caucasian boss" to "local employer," which I have reverted because "local employer" is too broad a description and implies that Dave Tatsuno was employed by someone outside of the Topaz camp. It is not descriptive enough. If you have a more descriptive term to use instead, by all means, go for it. If not, I'd leave it alone until we can come up with one. Also "Caucasian" is not an offensive term. If it read "honky boss," yeah, that would be offensive, but it does not. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

First, "Caucasian boss" is a POV bias term for the same reasons "Jap boss" or "Negro boss" would be offensive to many. A better, more accurate, and less offensive term must be agreed on. Second, you suggest Mr. Tatsuno was not employed by someone outside of the Topaz camp. Yet read the stroy: After security was relaxed, the internees where allowed to work outside the camp. And the article states "...had a movie camera smuggled into the camp, at the urging of his Caucasian boss." So, was this "Caucasian boss" a camp employee? Or did Mr. Tatsuno work off camp in the local area? It is unclear, but I would suggest that camp employees would not be referred to as "boss". Proxy User (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since prisoners were most usually employed inside the camp they were imprisoned in, no, it isn't clear, especially given the fact that there are so few verifiable citations in this article. And i disagree regarding the whole "boss" issue. "Caucasian" is not a racial slur, while "Jap" is and "Negro" is now considered to be offensive. And if Tatsuno's boss was indeed Caucasian, which is a virtual certainty, how does this violate WP:NPOV?

I'm not saying it's the best terminology to use...far from it. However, "local employer" is even less accurate and it leaves it too wide open to interpretation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no documentation either way about the nature of Mr. Tatsuno's employment. Therefor, it can not be accurate to say "Caucasian boss", which I believe to be biased. Also, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Usage which defiantly implies that the term is "depreciated" as used to describe ethnicity. In addition, "boss" in the context of this article implies slavery.

I don't really see an issue with "local employer", which seems much more accurate since it is likely that his "boss" was not a camp employee, and likely he worked outside the camp in the local area, and we don't know if his "boss" was Caucasian or not (maybe likely, but it's not possible to say factually. Is it even relevant?). There is certainly nothing offensive about "local employer" as it is completely unbiased in any way.

But if you must have the term "Caucasian boss" to emphasize racial servitude, I guess I won't argue about it (my employer is a Russian Jew, but I don't say my "Jewish boss"). But it is a bias terminology that is not proven to be factual in this specific case. Maybe since the camp was in Utah, we should say his "Mormon boss"? His "Caucasian Mormon boss"? Just know that it's POV where it doesn't have to be. Proxy User (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In the context you speak of regarding your boss, yes, that would be inappropriate. However, in this particular case, it may not be. I don't know what the author had in mind, but given the fact that racism played such a huge role in the internment, it might be relevent to note the ethnicity of Tatsuno's boss. No one said anything about "racial servitude" in the article that I could see. And while it may not be proven to be factual, it also isn't proven to be inaccurate. The fact is, there that entire section has no inline citations and the entire article is pretty much devoid of verifiable references to begin with. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than enter the debate, I've gone ahead and replaced the language in question (no, I didn't author that section originally . . . and I agree that it's not well worded). I hope that the new text will be acceptable to all parties. — Myasuda (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Turns out I was right, although that's not the point. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The new wording is excellent, unbiased, factual. No, Gmatsuda, you where not "right", "Caucasian boss" is still bias language. Yes, clearly, Mr. Tatsuno's employer was a white guy, how could it have been any other way? The question was never what race was his employer, the question was about racially charged terminology. But the new text is very good indeed.

On a different note, in recent years, the "memorial" at the site, such as it is, has been vandalized often. Standing in the dirt parking lot and looking about at what remains is a moving - and disturbing - experience. Proxy User (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While it was not the best language, I disagree that it was "racially charged." In fact, even the question of bias is dubious, at best. Regardless, what Myasuda did is better and I'll leave it at that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Caucasian boss" is the most appropriate for the simple reason that this is how the man was described by Tatsuno, which was his way of showing that he had the support of non-Nisei in this project. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

Since we were talking about language above and since I had a little spare time, I "polished up" one bit of terminology in this article. It referred to Topaz as an "internment camp." While that is commonly used, it is not accurate:

• Internment generally applies to enemy aliens/non-citizens. More than 2/3rds of those imprisoned in these camps were native-born American citizens.
  
• The US Government had separate camps that were officially known as "internment camps." Topaz was not one of them.

As such, I removed "internment camp" whereever used in this article. I also added a section on Terminology, which is also included in the Manzanar article, which is a Featured Article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! "Political Correctness" run a muck. How about something called "discussion" before unilateral P.C. changes like this? Is there to be an "ownership" issue with this article? Where is the discussion of this? To remove terminology which is both widely used and commonly understood for the purpose of P.C. is almost typical at Wikipedia these days. But it doesn't make it accurate in terms of history of fact and usage. Proxy User (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow..."political correctness?" Sorry. Wrong. If you have any verifiable justification for not including the terminology section that I added, by all means, please add it to the article, as I did. However, if you do not, please don't remove someone else's edits simply because you disagree. Your opinion is just that. An opinion. Unless you have something that you can document (this is an encyclopedia, isn't it?), it's you who are "running amuck." -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you prefer, we can use the description given by FDR, who signed the order: "concentration camps." Better? No? Then perhaps we should use the term most commonly identified with these camps. "Internment" is synonymous with "imprisonment," which accurately describes putting someone under armed guard and behind barbed wire.

We use a lot of phrases which aren't exactly accurate. Not all kidnappings involve the abduction of sleeping children, propaganda generally doesn't involved the dissemination of truth, and the traffic cop doesn't write you a ticket -- he prints on a citation form. Unless you intend to spend your life making such minor corrections, then maybe you ought to not be so picky about terminology. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As an interested but neutral observer, I went back and read the article title again. The article is about the Topaz camp. The lead section has four relevant sentences with one citation. The section immediately following the lead, with a dozen citations, is a general terminology dissertation that tells me nothing specifically about Topaz. The "terminology" section is about a larger, more general issue, not specifically about the camp, per se. The "Terminology" section is out of place in this article. I suggest that this section be merged with the "Terminology debate" section in the "Japanese American internment" article and then linked from a "See also" section, or footnote, at the end of this article — "terminology", as written, is only incidental to the subject of the Topaz article. Think like Wikipedians. — Wjwalrus (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The terminology is covered in the Japanese American internment article, but it also need to be covered in the specifc camp articles. If this article had more meat to it, it wouldn't seem out of place. Check out Manzanar, which is an FA, to see what I mean. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wjwalrus. The terminology section feels out of place, and having it redundant in each of the camp articles is not a good solution. It feels like a defensive move, made in anticipation of future arguments . . . which is not (in my opinion) a justification for its presence here. Wjwalrus's suggestions are reasonable alternatives to consider. — Myasuda (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you want to allow those who demand that "concentration camp" be reserved exclusively for the Nazi death camps, then by all means, do what you wish. If you want a more balanced view, it's a good idea to deal with the terminology, especially since this particular issue--what to call them--has been part of their history all along. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but I would like to make another point: I think it's important to consider the practical merits of placing content that applies to several articles in one common place. If this is not done, future editors who update the "terminology" section in one article might not realize they should update the other camp articles with the same information. These articles would then remain without the update. By linking the camp articles to the common section, the reader would always be taken to the most recent update. Furthermore, it brings the "terminology" discussion among editors to a common place. That said, I think it would be within encyclopedic tone to leave at least one or two sentences somewhere in the individual camp articles — perhaps after the word "internment" is used — to more directly alert the reader to the terminology issue, and to provide a WikiLink to the common "Terminology debate" section. — Wjwalrus (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Under better circumstances, I would agree. However, Japanese American internment is often being ravaged by historical revisionists who are attempting to distort the facts about the internment, I would agree. However, until that article isn't "under attack." it's better to have the section here as well. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's ten years later and the terminology section in Japanese American internment duplicated a lot of information on this page. I removed the extra information about terminology on this page. If you disagree with this removal, let's talk. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable Topaz internees

One thing...it doesn't bother me personally that Henry and Rose Tani are included as notable Topaz internees. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not inherited. Just because their son is notable doesn't mean they are. I don't see how what is currently in the article about them makes them notable. This will be a problem when the time comes for this article to go through evaluation for Good Article status and beyond. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My personal inclination is to remove the Tani's from the list. If the original contributor desires, the additional level of detail given in the list can be added to Daniel Tani#Personal life. — Myasuda (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and remove them and move the content over. I don't think you need the original author's permission. A note on his/her talk page should suffice. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb for notability is that individuals should have notable wikipedia pages; Henry and Rose Tani don't. Tedder (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's not necessarily a definitive factor in this particular case. With the Japanese American concentration camps, there are several people who would have to be considered to be notable among the former prisoners, even though they might not necessarily meet WP:NOTE. A good example is Sue Kunitomi Embrey, a former prisoner at Manzanar. There is no Wikipedia article for her (maybe I'll write one someday), but that doesn't mean she isn't notable (trust me, she would definitely meet the notability requirements). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sue is an example of someone who is notable even outside of the camp (and should probably have a page). Notability inside the camp doesn't mean much- I think my cat is notable inside of my apartment, but that doesn't make him notable on Wikipedia. Tedder (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another good example would be Ralph Lazo. Might not be notable outside of the Manzanar article, but is certainly a notable former prisoner. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Being in your apartment is one thing. Being imprisoned in such a camp is an entirely different story, with totally different circumstances. Not a very good analogy, really. No offense intended. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But the point is that not all internees are notable. An internment camp has a higher degree of inherent notability than my apartment, but that doesn't make everyone in the camp notable. If the internee has some degree of notability external to the camp, it probably means they are notable. It's kind of the "fame in x" argument. I do agree, however, that the camp has an inherent notability that makes "marginally notable" people move up the scales. I don't agree that makes anyone who was notable within the camp eligible for notability. Tedder (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're reading WAY too much into what I said... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. To me, someone who has been the subject of numerous network news and mainstream media articles, and whose death directly led to a policy crisis in a Federal agency . . .well, someone like that is "notable." Likewise, Henry Rose was an important member of the Japanese American political community, and this article is not only about a portion of the Japanese American community, but his time in the camp was the basis of his later political and social activism. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Meteorite Found Near Topaz War Relocation Center

While interned at Topaz during World War II, Akio Uhihera and Yoshito Nishimoto were on a rock hunting expedition in the Drum Mountains, 16 miles west of the concentration camp. Akio noticed an interesting rock near a sagebrush, and after some excavation found that it was a 1,164 pound rare iron meteorite. What is left of the meteorite is now on display at the Smithsonian Institution. More details are available from the December 20, 1944 article in the Deseret News published here.

December 1944 Article, Deseret News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.105.67 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Topaz War Relocation Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609235643/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/35.3/daniels.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/35.3/daniels.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624065352/http://www.densho.org/default.asp?path=%2Fassets%2Fsharedpages%2Fglossary.asp%3Fsection%3Dhome to http://www.densho.org/default.asp?path=%2Fassets%2Fsharedpages%2Fglossary.asp%3Fsection%3Dhome
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027001849/http://www.doi.gov/news/07_News_Releases/070404.html to http://www.doi.gov/news/07_News_Releases/070404.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

pre-2006 source for Delta residents protesting a "prison for the innocent"

I recently found a source for the "curse"/ residents of Delta not wanting a "prison for the innocent" named after their town. The book was self-published by a person with a history PhD. I found another reference in a 2013 obituary originally in the SF Chronicle and in a historical sports book. However, the wording of the references is so similar that it makes me think they came from a common source... and it could have been Wikipedia. The information has been on the page since its beginning in 2006, so I'm looking for a source that predates it to prevent circular referencing! Let me know if you find one. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the information for now. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential problems with use of "Caucasian" in collections description in WP

If that is a supplied title by a WP editor i would serious advise against it as it very well may never be known just what is the "racial" identity of non-internee personal and occupants at Topaz. The word can be a very divisive term to some people and although the situation may be a Japanese-origin and non-Japanese origin of people there we cannot universally apply a term of Caucasian that would from day one until infinity remain accurate. Especially with DNA gnome identification today who knows what may come up if those that worked and were associated with Topaz were to be tested. All you can be certain about with people connected with Topaz is that group which were interned, those that are connected because of interactions with the internees and the government employees. But use of the word "Caucasian" is like asking for trouble. Ask someone with an anthropological background the potential misperceived implications. I really hope that the use is not a creation of any "official" government related agency.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I supplied that title. When I did research for this page, the racial division between Caucasian administration and Japanese internees was a common subject of analysis. Jewel of the Desert specifically mentions "caucasians" many times. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The book is written in 1993. Race relations then, and now have changed, and how one interprets the usage of racial labels has also changed. Perhaps this is the reason why some may see the usage of the term Caucasian as incorrect, while others do not. I cannot say as I can speak for other people.

2605:e000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5ba4:7db6 (talk · contribs) please be careful, as I have seen two reversions of content, and this is coming close to the WP:3RR rule.

I am searching their catalog and do not readily see a collection by the name "Papers from Caucasians who worked at Topaz", perhaps my google-fu is failing me. While off line reliable sources are utilizable, I think the actual collection name needs to be verified. I will label accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I called them directly Wednesday afternoon to understand what is and what is not the "collection" title. BYU Special Collections does not have a collection of that subject with the word Caucasian in it. That title was created by the WP editor of that content. The sub-parts are collections of theirs but they are not part of a larger collection except the holdings of Special Collections. What the originally supplied collection title did was impose on BYU Special Collections the name of the collection without their authorization regardless as to the intended useful purpose of the WP editor. As a historian, archivist and records manager I would counsel against using any collection title that BYU Special Collections has not authorized. No one is denying that the issue of racial tension is part of the history of Topaz. Far from it. But setting up the groups that make up thr discussion may not be as acceptable all around by using words or terms that originate from one group of the participants and in the use of those words or terms what is expressed is negative connotation about the other participants2605:E000:9143:7000:3814:E722:AE2A:FB8F (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you. You are absolutely correct. There is no official collection in the L. Tom Perry Special Collections that has to do with Topaz that has the word "Caucasian" in it. I made that up to make it clear to readers what I was linking to. There is no umbrella collection that holds all of the records related to Topaz in it. I searched through the records and found the relevant ones to link at the bottom of the page and invented the umbrella term. "Non-internee" is accurate, but I think the racial difference is important because of the racial tensions between the administration and the internees. Would "white" or "European-American" be a better descriptor in your opinion? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a better title would be "Items within the L. Tom Perry Special Collections which are relevant to the Topaz War Relocation Center". Opinions? This way it can include any other parts of the Special collections regardless if the subject of that part of the special collections is produced by an internee or non-internee.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as what was reviewed and where it can be found is how they are linked in WP is full-filling the responsibility of any editor so that there is an opportunity to verify or refute the content. Being general about the content of the collections leaves it to the research as to why they will use the link to seek out what can be found about Topaz o anything else in those collections. Only one aspect of the WP Topaz article is about race relations which certainly if pursued in an appropriate and full forum give us a better understanding just how did people refer to each other and what connotation that can be revealed with that use. The only mention of racial tension in the WP Japanese American Internment article is that between camp administration and Japanese medical personnel.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Topaz War Relocation Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I'll review this in depth soon. My initial comments are below. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

General comments:

• There are a lot of images, but they're not distributed evenly throughout the page. For instance, the "Topaz in recent years" section has five images.
• The images also don't seem that relevant to the sections they're describing. For example, why is there a picture of a sewer?
• The sections don't all need to contain "Topaz" in them (e.g. "History of Topaz", "Notable Topaz internees"). We already know the article is about Topaz. You can just say "History" and "Notable internees". (though I do think "Life in Topaz" could be kept)
• The words in the section titles should be lowercase if they aren't either the first word or a proper noun. (e.g. "Architecture and Living Arrangements" should be "Architecture and living arrangements".)
• Almost none of the entries in the "Internees" section have any in-line references.
• I suppose "Topaz in film" and "Topaz in literature" can be subsections of a single section about media appearances.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello epicgenius and thanks for starting the review. I was pleasantly surprised to find many relevant images on Commons from NARA, and replaced some of the contemporary images with historical ones. I also added in-line citations to the list of notable internees and made the other edits you suggested. I'm going to be off-wiki starting tomorrow, but I should be back by July 3rd. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Because of some dispute on the talk page, I ended up adding citations to one of the descriptions of an external link. I added a special references section to the external links section (otherwise they just fell under the template awkwardly). I'm open to doing it another way though, if you have suggestions. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): You're welcome. Given your statement above about being off-wiki until July 3, I think I should put this review aside until you come back. I'll leave some comments during that time, though. epicgenius (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the footnotes in external links, it's fine. Better to have references for something if it might be in dispute, even if it's in the external links. I suppose you can use a separate reference class, such as <ref group="External-links"></ref>. Like this: then put {{reflist|group="External-links"}} in the bottom of the page. epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

References

---

Lead/Infobox:

• Ref 1 National Register Information System only brings you to the landing page. Template:NRISref/doc shows how you can specify the reference ID and the title.
• The Topaz War Relocation Center, also known as the Central Utah Relocation Center (Topaz) and (briefly) the Abraham Relocation Center, was a camp which housed Nikkei – Americans of Japanese descent and immigrants who had come to the United States from Japan. is very awkward. Especially the punctuation: two commas, two parentheses, and one dash that would normally suggest a parenthetical phrase. I would personally suggest "The Topaz War Relocation Center, also known as the Central Utah Relocation Center (Topaz) and briefly as the Abraham Relocation Center, was a camp which housed Americans of Japanese descent and immigrants who had come to the United States from Japan, also known as Nikkei". Or you can explain what Nikkei are in another sentence.
• Politicians felt that Japanese immigrants and their children were dangerous on the west coast and forced them to locate to remote camps. - (1) Could you give some examples of politicians? (2) "West Coast" is a proper noun and should be capitalized.
• The camp was opened in September 1942 and closed in October 1945. - This may be more appropriate earlier, before There were a number of such camps used during the Second World War, under the control of the War Relocation Authority. Speaking of which, you could also modify the sentence beginning with "There were a number..." to make it flow more smoothly, e.g. "Topaz was one of a number of such camps...".
• The camp consisted of 19,800 acres (8,012.8 ha),[3], - There's an extra comma.
• but the main living area was concentrated into 640 acres (259.0 ha). - Something like "... with a 640-acre (259.0 ha) main living area" would be more concise.
• This central residential area was located approximately 15 miles (24.1 km) west of Delta, Utah - (1) I would put a period right after "Delta, Utah", and change the fragment after some lived as caretakers to its own sentence. (2) Would it work to place the location earlier in the lead (e.g. the first paragraph)? Just a question.
• Conditions were very uncomfortable even after the belated installation of pot-bellied stoves, as the arid area experienced extreme temperature fluctuations and the barracks lacked insulation. - I would switch the parts of the sentence before/after the comma. It would read more smoothly if you put the cause of the discomfort first. E.g. "The arid area experienced extreme temperature fluctuations and the barracks lacked insulation, so conditions were very uncomfortable even after the belated installation of pot-bellied stoves."
• Camp life was documented in a newspaper, Topaz Times, and in the literary publication Trek. Internees worked inside and outside the camp, mostly in agricultural labor. Many internees became notable artists. - This is an abrupt transition from the "loyalty questionnaire" sentences that preceded it. I think it should be a new paragraph. Also, would it be better if this paragraph were placed before the "loyalty questionnaire" sentences?
• The film American Pastime is set in the Topaz camp and uses Dave Tatsuno's historical footage. - This is a very abrupt transition as well. You could lead with a sentence about Topaz after its closure.
• The site is a U.S. National Historic Landmark. - It would be nice to mention which year this occurred (in 2007, it looks like).

I made changes based on these notes. I moved the Topaz Times sentence up in the lead, so I moved the section about daily life to before the political issues (so the body matches the organization of the lead). The sentences about the films and books about Topaz seem a bit awkward still--maybe I should just take them out? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Sorry for the delays. Sure, I suppose you can take these sentences out. I will review the rest of the article this week. epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Here are some more comments:

Terminology:

• United States Government - "government" should be lowercase per MOS:CAPS
• Topaz has been referred to as a "War Relocation Center," - also lowercase, unless this is part of the commonly accepted proper name for the center.

• I removed "War Relocation Center" for now and ordered the first source cited for this sentence, since I couldn't find the term in the other two sources. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• The "Reflections" source doesn't mention "War Relocation Center" either, so I think it's better to leave it out. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• the controversy over which term is the most accurate and appropriate continues to the present day - This could be accompanied by some examples of terminology conflicting with each other, if you can find them. Additionally, when is "the present day"? For the sources that are provided, they seem to date from the late 1990s.

• I put that the controversy continued through the late 1990s (might be bordering on OR). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• In a preface to a book on Topaz written and published by the Topaz Museum - in which year? This is important since the article mentions "the present day" in the previous sentence.

History:

• The article should briefly explain when the attack on Pearl Harbor is. It's strange that this doesn't have a date, but the phrase as a result of Executive Order 9066, signed by President Franklin Roosevelt in February 1942 does.
• 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent and Japanese-born residents of the West Coast of the United States - This would be a good place to explain the terms "Issei" and "Nisei" since these are mentioned later on. (It seems like "Sansei", etc. are included under descendants of those born to "Nisei". But I could be wrong.)

• I defined the terms parenthetically, but I could also make it a separate sentence. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• California, Oregon and Washington - These states are on the West Coast, but many people outside the US might not know that, so this fact should be clarified. E.g. "approximately 120,000 [...] residents in California, Oregon and Washington, along the West Coast of the United States, were forced to leave their homes".
• The first sentence of the paragraph is very long. I suggest splitting into at least 2 sentences.
• Also, you can link Internment of Japanese Americans within the paragraph itself, instead of having a separate hatnote.
• The camp was governed by Charles F. Ernst until June 1944, when the position was taken over by Luther T. Hoffman following Ernst's resignation. - this should be mentioned later on, after the sentence about the camp's opening.
• 65% were Nisei or Kibei- American-born citizens - (1) The sentence should not begin with a number. You can put something like "Sixty-five percent" or "The majority, 65%,", but having the sentence begin with just "65%" is grammatically incorrect. (2) Should the dash after "Kibei" be a hyphen? Or is it spaced-"n"-dash or "m" dash? (3) The grammar is also confusing; it's not clear if "American-born citizens" qualifies just "Kibei", or "Nisei" as well.
• Topaz was opened September 11, 1942 - Likewise, this is important to mention early on.
• A total of 11,212 people lived at Topaz at one time or another. - this could probably be combined with the comment about "9,000 internees and staff". I suppose the 9,000 figure is how many people lived there at any given time.
• Topaz was originally known as the Central Utah Relocation Authority, and then the Abraham Relocation Authority, but the names were too long for post office regulations. The final name, Topaz, came from a mountain which overlooks the camp from 9 miles (14.5 km) away. - I suppose this could be its own paragraph, since it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the second paragraph.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Sorry for the delay, I got caught up in work this week. I'll try to finish off the prose part this weekend.

Climate:

• Surrounded by desert, Topaz was an entirely new environment for internees, most of whom were from the San Francisco Bay Area - This should be reworded a bit, especially the first part of the sentence ("Surrounded by desert, Topaz"), which is awkward. The point is that Topaz was surrounded by desert, and the internees from the Bay Area were not acclimated to such an environment. It would be helpful to compare the Bay Area's climate with the desert climate.
• In the arid environment, temperatures could vary greatly throughout the day - Which temperatures did it vary between?
• Winters were cold, with averages below freezing for several months and an average of 18 inches of snow received - This sentence is also awkward. First, below-freezing already implies that it's cold, and second, the 18 inches of snow doesn't tie in well with the rest of the sentence. It would be better to describe the winter similar to something like this: "During the winters, the average temperatures would be below freezing for several months and the area would receive an average of 18 inches of snow."
  • Also, I suggest you use {{convert}}, for the 18 inches of snow. The freezing temperature measurement doesn't really need a convert template, though.
• 100 degrees F - This measurement should use {{convert}} or provide the Celsius equivalent.

Architecture and living arrangement:

• one square mile, 20x20 foot, every quarter of a mile - all need conversions or metric equivalents.
• Each block housed 200–300 people, - I'm assuming these are the 34 residential blocks, correct?
• The barracks were eventually lined with sheetrock, and the floors filled with masonite, but not until many internees had already moved into the camp, experiencing severe hot and cold in the arid climate - I guess you should flip the two halves of the sentences around. Otherwise, the timeline of this sentence is backward. So "After many internees had already moved into the camp, experiencing severe hot and cold in the arid climate, the barracks were eventually lined with sheetrock, and the floors filled with masonite."
• Camp construction was completed in part by 214 interned volunteers. - This is an interesting sentence, and also a little confusing, particularly the word "volunteers". Were these internees who had voluntarily agreed to build the camp before they moved in? Or were they simply unpaid? I'm just wondering.

• I looked at the source again and reworded this. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• except for a lumber pile of scrap wood - Am I correct to assume that every family had piles of wood with which they could build their own furniture? This should be clarified.

• Scrap wood wasn't distributed individually. I described it as "communal". Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• four bathtubs and four showers served 250 to 300 people housed in each barrack block - This is redundant and might conflict with the previous paragraph. The other paragraph said that four bathtubs served the women and four showers served the men. However, this sentence implies that the bathtubs and showers were shared by all the residents. I would suggest combining and correcting these sentences, because this is a little confusing.

• I took out the second sentence. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• and was "almost undrinkable" - in which way? Was it unfiltered?
• among others - This is not needed, because the sentence already has the word "include". The other, unnamed facilities are inclusive within the phrase. Just "including a high school, two elementary schools, a 28-bed hospital, at least two churches, and a community garden" is enough.
  • Also, "include" is repeated twice within the same sentence, so I suggest replacing one of these words.

Daily life:

• but camp produce won awards at the Millard County Fair - This doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence about Topaz not being fully self-sufficient.
• two elementary schools, Desert View Elementary and Mountain View Elementary, Topaz High School (grades 7–12) and an adult education program - This reads as a serial list. But Desert View and Mountain View are included under "two elementary schools" whereas the grammar implies that this is separate. There are three options:
  • put "Desert View Elementary and Mountain View Elementary" in parentheses or enclose them with dashes
  • put semicolons after "Mountain View Elementary" and "(grades 7-12)"
  • put "as well as" before the phrase "Topaz High School".
• Topaz had a newspaper, the Topaz Times, a literary publication called Trek, and two libraries which eventually contained almost 7,000 items in both English and Japanese. - I'd replace the first comma with the word "called", so it would be an actual serial list. I.e. "Topaz had a newspaper called the Topaz Times..."
• with reunions held up to 50 years after internment - I'd add "ended" after "internment". Also, was the 50-year reunion the last reunion ever? If not, I would rephrase that sentence.
• 6 miles, 1,164 pound - these needs conversion to metric units. I'd also link Smithsonian Institution.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments so far. I think I've addressed them in my recent edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• No problem. Sorry for the continued delays, since I am busy on weekdays. Here's the rest of my prose comments. I'll check the references soon (probably tomorrow, since after this weekend, I will be busy until the end of August). I hope to finish this review within the week, and I mean it this time. epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the additional comments. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• General note: setting {{convert}} to |adj=on will allow it to be used in a singular tense, such as {{convert|1164|lb|kg|adj=on}} → 1,164-pound (528 kg)

Camp politics:

• It may just be me, but I feel that the first paragraph is too long. Maybe you can split the war-draft section into its own paragraph.
• assessing their level of Americanization - Do you mean that this was an assessment of the internees' allegiance to the US? The word "Americanization" seems a bit out of place here.

• The questionnaire did try to quantify how "American" they were. It asked about their religion, language proficiency, and preferred recreational activities. I added a few sentences explaining that. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Two questions asked prisoners to about their willingness - There's a typo here, should be "asked prisoners about".
• most notably artist Chiura Obata, resulting in his immediate release. - Why was he released and what happened to him? This sounds like an interesting story, because normally people don't get released from jail (and especially not from an interment camp) for assaulting someone.
• 1,447 "disloyal" prisoners - Sentences shouldn't begin with numbers. The rest of the sentences are correct in this sense.
• Sixty-three-year-old James Wakasa was shot to death on April 11, 1943, by guards for wandering too close to the camp fence - This is in passive voice and it would read better in the active voice. e.g. "Guards fatally shot 63-year-old James Wakasa on April 11, 1943, for wandering too close to the camp fence."
• Internees reacted with work strikes - "reacted with work strikes" could be reworded as just "went on strike"
• Korematsu v. United States should be in italics.

In film:

• Dave Tatsuno (1913–2006), had a movie camera smuggled into the camp, at the urging of his supervisor, Walter Honderick. Film which he shot from 1943 to 1945 became the documentary Topaz. - This is very awkward for several reasons:
  • Dave Tatsuno (1913–2006), doesn't need a comma.
  • had a movie camera smuggled into the camp should be in active voice: "smuggled a movie camera into the camp". Or if he didn't actually smuggle it, something similar.
  • his supervisor, Walter Honderick - supervisor from where?
  • Film which he shot from 1943 to 1945 became the documentary Topaz should also be in active voice. "The documentary Topaz uses film which he shot from 1943 to 1945."
• In the second paragraph, Documentaries about the Topaz War Relocation Center include Dave Tatsuno's Topaz is redundant.
• Ken Verdoia's 1987 work of the same name should be clarified after you act upon the above comment.

In literature:

• Maybe you should link Berkeley, California, at its first mention. Then the article doesn't need to mention "Berkeley, CA".

In art:

• Much of the art made by detainees at the camp depicted life there, and survives: most prominently drawings and woodcuts by Chiura Obata and Matsusaburō (George) Hibi. - This should be reworded or broken up into two sentences, because the last part of the segment is a run-on.

Recent years:

• General comment: When is "recent"?

• I renamed the section to "Topaz after closing". Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment about placement: Should this be included before the "media" section? This should be considered.

• I agree that it makes more sense earlier. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• most of the buildings were auctioned off and removed from the site. - I'm assuming the buildings themselves can't be moved in one piece, but had to be disassembled. This could be clarified.
• Delta High School Teacher, Jane Beckwith, - the word "teacher" should be lowercase, and the commas are redundant.
• In 2017, the museum reopened after being remodeled and focused on the history of Topaz - when was it closed? Didn't it just open in 2015?

• I'm curious about that too. I double-checked my sources and I think the remodeling was about changing the space from an art gallery to a more traditional museum. It also was only closed for a few months. One of my sources states that it initially opened in 2014, and another says it opened in 2015. I left a note in-wiki-text about it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• The site is a U.S. National Historic Landmark - also redundant

epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Sorry that this review took 2 months. Between a new job and vacation, I hadn't had that much time to conduct much reviewing. I will add some source comments soon (hopefully today or tomorrow). epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): OK, here's my remaining comments:

• The date formats need to be standardized. Some dates are year-month-day, some are day-month-year, and ref 46 has a "month/day/year" format
• There are some {{citation}} templates through the article (which use CS2 referencing), but the style of citation in the article is mostly CS1 (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}. I suggest standardizing the CS1 references to CS2 references.
• In further reading, these two references, "Journey to Topaz novel for children by Yoshiko Uchida, Grade 4 and up." and "Journey Home sequel to 'Journey to Topaz'" are incomplete citations. They need more information, such as date, ISBN, author, and/or page numbers. I'm aware that "Journey to Topaz" has the author's name already.
• Ref 25: need to clarify that this is via Google News.
• Ref 46: "Archived copy" should be replaced with the real title of the references.

That's it. Putting on hold for 7 days to allow these comments to be resolved. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:, I've made the suggested corrections, although consistent formatting of dates and citations is not required for GA (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not) Thank you again for the thorough review. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware that consistent formatting is not required. It is a recommendation, though, because this would make it easier for a reader to interpret the article. I'll take a final look when I get home. epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good; passing. epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)