User:Julshin/Shim Suk-hee/Tranak 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? Julshin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Julshin/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
The Lead section, which introduces the topic of the article, has not been updated.

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
Content is up to date and relevant to the topic of Shim Suk-Hee. This new content has been added to the Early Life section of the article, but should probably be placed in the Career section.

New additions have been made in World Championships and Personal Life, all content is relevant to these topics. In the section, Accusation on Cho, there could be a bit more information of Cho's standing on the situation and elaborate a bit further on the "constant violence" placed on Shim.

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 seems to be neutral and unbiased.

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
Not all the sources are thorough, but they are relevant, current, and seem reliable. All the links worked either by clicking on the hyperlink or copy and pasting into the search engine.

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
For the most part, the content is organized. Some information may need to be placed in another section. The content is easy to read but could be written in a way that flows more easily and concisely. Some grammatical errors may need to be fixed as well. Grammarly is a great source for checking spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

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 were added.

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
This is 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
Yes, the new content added did improve the overall quality of the article. It keeps Shim Suk-Hee's achievements up to date. Even another section was added so that the audience can read not just Shim's athletic accomplishments, but some aspects of her personal life as well. Content can be improved by adding more references and rephrasing some sentences so that the content flows better upon reading the article.