User:Gallaz63/Kendama/AyanoTanaka 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? (provide username) - 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I see you added or changed the lead. I think this lead has basic information about Kendama and length is great as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I don't see any problem about content. It has great information and there wan't info about Kendama. I know a lot about Kendama, and based on my knowledge/experience it is all great information that you have in this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
All content is added natural and there wan't weird sentences or biased information. this article have proper information based on the resources.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I noticed some of the link doesn't work for some reason. You might need to check if that resource are current/existing. Also, it is not about references, but under the section of "history in Japan' there was about "Nagasaki" which is Japanese prefecture. So you could link to the Wiki page of "Nagasaki" in case readers will be wondering what Nagasaki is. Not only this but you can find something that you could link to other Wiki articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? This article is broken down into small section so as I read I felt easy to follow the structure of this article.

Organization evaluation
It is divided to small section so it is clear for readers to what they are reading or getting from that section. As I read this article, I do not see spelling error.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

This article has pictures to show what Kendama looks like and the Structure and terminology of Kendama. It makes very easier for reader to understand what Kendama is. I suggest you that maybe make the picture bigger especially the picture for Structure and terminology of Kendama because that has number to look at. Also there is a blank space so it better to make picture bigger to fill the blank space.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This article has great amount of information and it definitely doesn't look like a stub article anymore. I like how it's divided to small section and explain each section very well.