User:Kafkanaut/Yokkaichi asthma/Hillmap 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? Kafkanaut

·        Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kafkanaut/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

·        Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? '''Yes. The Lead is longer and also includes an actual definition of Yokkaichi asthma.'''

·        Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? '''Yes. The existing article doesn't really define Yokkaichi asthma in the opening sentence. The new introduction is more thorough and actually explains the disease.'''

·        Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? '''It does. The sandbox article includes a section on environmental effects with subsections on marine life, air quality, and soil quality. It might make sense to reference the negative effects of pollution beyond asthma in the Lead.'''

·        Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No

·        Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? '''I think it's good. It's thorough but only two sentences.'''

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

·        Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.

·        Is the content added up-to-date? '''Yes. A few of the cited articles are dated but most of the works cited were published recently'''

·        Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? '''I personally would like more information about the lawsuits that followed discovery of the pollution. You've greatly improved on the "legal action" section in the existing article, but you still didn't mention how the plaintiffs were compensated, how high the case traveled in the judiciary system (was this a Supreme Court Case?), or whether the case received much media attention.'''

Content evaluation

'''I think you've added lots of good content that will improve significantly on the existing article. Some additional content on the legal ramifications of the disease might be helpful.'''

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. It would be great to know a bit more about the actual people afflicted by the disease, but I don't think this information was excluded because of any sort of bias.

·        Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation

'''This is a balanced, fair article. It would be awesome to learn a bit more about the actual people afflicted by the disease, though. Here's a link to an article I found with data on the survivors:''' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2311286/

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

·        Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? '''Yes. It's carefully researched.'''

·        Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I don't know much about the available literature on the topic, but it looks like they do.

·        Are the sources current? Yes.

·        Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The sources you used seem reputable and current.

Organization

Guiding questions:

·        Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? '''The content is readable and well-written. Some of the sections are so short that they can feel a bit choppy. You might be able to combine Petrochemical Complex 1-3 into one section.'''

·        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. The content is very well organized.'''

Organization evaluation

'''Your article is extremely organized and I didn't notice spelling or grammar errors. Some of your subsections are very small and can make the article feel a bit choppy. I'd suggest combining some of these smaller subsections in order to help the flow of the article, but it might be that this sort of format is consistent with other similar Wikipedia articles. If that's the case, don't change it.'''

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

·        Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? '''Yes. The images of Japan and a sulfur dioxide molecule are both helpful and well placed.'''

·        Are images well-captioned? Yes.

·        Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

·        Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? '''Yes. They are not fancy, but they help readers understand the topic.'''

Images and media evaluation

I think both of the images you added add to the article.

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

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

·        Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? '''Absolutely. The article will be greatly improved by these edits.'''

·        What are the strengths of the content added? It's well-researched, detailed, organized, and included helpful pictures.

·        How can the content added be improved? '''It would be awesome to learn a bit more about the actual people afflicted by the disease. Can you recover from Yokkaichi Asthma? Do lots of people still suffer from the disease? Here's a link I found to information on the survivors:''' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2311286/. '''I'm not sure if it will be helpful or not, but you can take a look at it. It also might be helpful to include more information on the court cases that came after the discovery of the pollution. Did the court case receive lots of media attention? Did later activists draw inspiration from the successful court case? What kind of compensation did the victims receive?'''

Overall evaluation

This looks like it's going to be a phenomenal addition to Wikipedia, Sarah.