User:Jordanwunderli/Sumo/Chriszhouzzl97 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) Jordanwunderli
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jordanwunderli/sandbox

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
''' He expands on an existing article so there is no lead. '''

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
The content is written in clear and concise description, a great summarized introductory to sumo attire is given, and the origin and related historical background are well-introduced in the content. I see a good portion of new content has been added to the article, but seems like he is planning to add another new section to the article, and he is still working on that.

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
The content added stays very neutral and descriptive in a objective tone. No claims appear biased toward a particular position and no viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.. No content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

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
The sources he used are magazines, newspapers, and professional websites of sumo. The sources are not cited in the content, which they should have been. I would recommend using the "cite" button on the edit page to cite every single sentence that is derived or summarized from your sources. And it is always important to double-check your writing afterwards to make sure there is no plagiarizing or close paraphrasing made by accident. (Many people do it without realizing, but it is violating the policy and you might get in trouble.)

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?

Organization evaluation
The content added is written in concise description and clear data-of-math and statistics. No grammatical or spelling errors found, well-organized and topic-contributing content.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
No images and media inserted.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article.

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
"Sumo attire" or "Sumo wrestler's clothes" are both very good content to expand on this existing article "sumo", that way readers will get a broader view and information on the style and history of the this specific aspect "the clothing of sumo". I think this is a very good point to expand on, and it will definitely makes the overall article of sumo better than it is now. A few suggestions from me will be: 1) to make sure you will be using the "cite" button on the edit page and cite ALL contents that are derived or summarized from you sources. And there is a part of the content that was written based on the mixture of information from multiple sources, make sure to cite all the sources one next to one in the end of the sentence, that way you don't get in trouble for plagiarizing. 2) For terminologies that were not mentioned in the existing content of the article, or terms that may seem unfamiliar to the readers, for example, the Japanese word "Tokoyama" and "Edo period" that you have mentioned in your new-added content, I suggest to use the "link" button on the edit page to make it "linkable", that way if there are readers who wonder what the word is, they would be able to click on the word and get linked to the Wiki page that introduces the word.