User:Gallaz63/Kendama/Abuckley3 Peer Review

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? Gallaz63
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gallaz63/Kendama

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead looks all good, clearly introduces the Kendama and how it works.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is nice and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Looks like it.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nope.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Looks pretty neutral, no mention of any individual companies or anything.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It is a bit heavy on the competition side, maybe show the edit side of kendama.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Nope.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes sources are strong.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current? Most of them are pretty current yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they did, I tried 3.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not any that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is very well organized, provides a good flow especially in the competition section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes they enhance the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are helpful section by section.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it helps the article a lot.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Better understanding of the product.
 * How can the content added be improved? Looks pretty good so far.