User:Jamespgj/Daigo Fukuryū Maru/Historyfan323 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)
 * Jamespgi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Jamespgj/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It does not appear to have been updated, and it does not appear in the relevant sandbox.
 * 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?
 * Not quite. It does talk about the crew's medical symptoms and treatment, but does not mention their health history, the role of the Japanese media, or the ship post-contamination.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise while also including most of what it should.

Lead evaluation
There is no lead in the sandbox draft, so I was working off of the lead for the original article. The lead as is works fairly well--it has a good introductory sentence, the brief description part talks about most of the article's major sections, and it does not include any superfluous information. I think it could use a little bit of editing (see third guiding question), but other than that, it is good.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * To the best of my knowledge, yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The first section of the original article, "Early days and final voyage" is missing from the sandbox draft, and some background information on the ship prior to the Bravo test would be important to include in the article.

Content evaluation
The sections that were very short/almost entirely absent from the original article are significantly more filled out/detailed in this draft version. Overall, I think detail was added where it was needed, and the sections that needed to be substantially added to were substantially added to.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * As far as I can tell, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are multiple viewpoints present in the article-especially regarding the circumstances by which the ship ended up being exposed to the Bravo test radiation, but they are all given equal representation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. When I read the added content, I did not get the impression that it was an attempt to persuade me in favor of any particular position.

Tone and balance evaluation
While there are certainly points were it would be easy for things to come out as biased in one direction or another (example- "Events after return to Yaizu port" subsection), the content remained neutral. Where there are multiple, disagreeing opinions involved in the content, they are balanced so that one is not given more value than the other. In general the new content is neutral in opinion and the multiple viewpoints are well-balanced.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It might just be a question of my not being able to figure it out, but I'm having a hard time telling which notes and references match which footnotes. Some of the footnotes appear to link to references that aren't there. However, where I can connect notes/references to footnotes, the sources are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Since this is far from the type of history I normally do, I'm not sure.
 * Are the sources current?
 * It seems like most of the sources come from the last two decades, and many from the last decade, so yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * It seems like most of the source links from the original article didn't quite transfer over, but they work in the original. In terms of new source links, they work. I also tried a couple of links within the article, and they all worked.

Sources and references evaluation
Problems (probably on my end) regarding matching notes/references and footnotes aside, the ones that I could figure out are reliable, current sources with working links. One of the books, The Day the Sun Rose in the West, is a memoir, which would be problematic, but it also includes a great deal of other material that backs up what is said in the memoir part.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The content is detailed, but also clear and fairly easy to read without getting too confused.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is a reference at the end of the "health history of crew" subsection to Oishi's book where the title is listed incorrectly--it should be The Day The Sun Rose in The West: Bikini, The Lucky Dragon, and I (the word Bikini is missing in the article draft). There are also a couple of occasions where dates are given, but without years, where the years would be helpful in keeping the timeline straight. Apart from these instances, there are no other noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
Generally speaking, the new content is well-written and well-organized, aside from a couple of instances already mentioned. There is also a sentence at the very beginning of the "Events surrounding March 1, 1954" section which feels like it doesn't flow with the rest of the section. However, the new content is well-written, well-organized, and flows relatively well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A (no images/media added as far as I can tell)
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A/

Images and media evaluation
Since they didn't add any images or media (as far as I can tell), there isn't really anything to evaluate.

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. Previously, a couple of the sections of the article were almost completely blank, and now they are well-filled-out. The article is considerably more complete now than it was originally.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The new content fills in a lot of important aspects of the topic that were previously more or less left out. It is detailed without being overly confusing and adds to the article without being biased in one direction or the other. The new content is also backed up by sound secondary sources.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There are a couple of small spots (mentioned previously). I also think the lead could be edited a bit to include material about all of the article's major sections (particularly those which were previously almost non-existent).

Overall evaluation
Overall, the new content substantially improves the article. It fills in spaces that were previously almost non-existent, and does so using reliable secondary sources with working links. Also, the wording is clear and relatively easy to understand, but also includes the necessary details to tell the story of the subject. There are a couple of places where something isn't entirely correctly listed, a couple of dates are missing years, and there's a sentence at the beginning of one section that doesn't quite flow with the rest, but these could be easily fixed. The lead does not appear in the article draft either, but it could use a little editing.

Apart from these minor issues, the article with the new content is a substantial improvement over the original.