User:Historyfan323/Ashio Copper Mine/Natalie Wilkinson Peer Review

Peer review --- I will be sending Hannah an email with additional comments
Hannah c,

I thought your History section had fascinating information though it could use more citations.

Your section on the incident is just stellar. I am writing about Shozo Tanaka who played a role in the activism against this mine so your work is actually very informative for me you even have sources I intend to check out.

I can tell your working on the aftermath section, super interested to see what you come up with.

Over all great work, honestly I am taking more from reading yours than what I am giving because you are such a good writer and researcher.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Historyfan323)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Historyfan323/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no
 * 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? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? YES
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? NO
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? YES

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - No images


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?