User:Kafkanaut/Yokkaichi asthma/Natalie Wilkinson Peer Review

I would like to add here that it was not obvious to me what I am expected to do with this template. however I type out a lot of comments on the article and will email them to Sara.

Peer review
Sara

You have edited wikipedia articles before and I am new to them so you probably know better than I however, here are my ideas for what could possibly help.

I am wondering if you could give a little more to the industry section and perhaps tie it back to the disease.


 * Why do you begin in 1955? Was there a conference? Can you link to the wiki for this conference?
 * Yokkaichi was faster at the transition, can you give a fact about this? Feels like a vague statement.

Petrochemical Complex No. 1 section


 * I wouldn’t start a sentence or a section with this “To accomplish the goal of the government's issues…” I don’t know what that means, Just tell us what the Daichi Petrochemical complex is, make it obvious, and what they did.

Petrochemical Complex No. 2 section


 * I think you should begin with, “ Phase II began as MITI announced …” and then go into the first thing you said. Don't start a section by telling me “why” when I don’t know the exact “what” your talking about.

Petrochemical Complex No. 2 section


 * As an example of the point I am repeatedly making I would rephrase the sentence in this section like this, “ Petrochemical Complex # 3 was constructed as an extension of Petrochemical Complex #2 due to a rising demand for ethylene and other petrochemicals. Production of chemicals to meet this demand began in 1972.

Petrochemical Complex No. 2 section


 * Same comment for this section as others

1967 Yokkaichi Pollution Lawsuit

 * I might add the compensation of victims section to this section
 * This is probably a section which deserves a few more lines. What did the patients get for their efforts? What was the result for companies with ties to Showa Yokkaichi Oil's Petrochemical Complex No. 1. Were the lawsuits effective enough to change how the companies engaged with these pollutants?

Other Cases


 * I love that you have this section

Overall I think you do an excellent job of maintaining a neutral voice while presenting the necessary facts someone would need to understand the history and form an opinion about it. You obviously have some great sources here. You're nearly done!

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? yep
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yep
 * 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? yep
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yep
 * 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? seem to
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yep

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? organization of sentences is a little off but I am emailing her about it
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think so

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? there is one image it did not enhance my understanding but perhaps for scientists it would
 * Are images well-captioned? yep
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I cannot tell where this image came from
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? as can be

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? She covers important information that enhances our understanding of the pollution and its effects and its historical significance.
 * How can the content added be improved? Honestly I think she does a great job and the only thing that could be improved is the grammatical structure of some sentences.

Overall evaluation
Sara

You have edited wikipedia articles before and I am new to them so you probably know better than I however, here are my ideas for what could possibly help.

I am wondering if you could give a little more to the industry section and perhaps tie it back to the disease.


 * Why do you begin in 1955? Was there a conference? Can you link to the wiki for this conference?
 * Yokkaichi was faster at the transition, can you give a fact about this? Feels like a vague statement.

Petrochemical Complex No. 1 section


 * I wouldn’t start a sentence or a section with this “To accomplish the goal of the government's issues…” I don’t know what that means, Just tell us what the Daichi Petrochemical complex is, make it obvious, and what they did.

Petrochemical Complex No. 2 section


 * I think you should begin with, “ Phase II began as MITI announced …” and then go into the first thing you said. Don't start a section by telling me “why” when I don’t know the exact “what” your talking about.

Petrochemical Complex No. 2 section


 * As an example of the point I am repeatedly making I would rephrase the sentence in this section like this, “ Petrochemical Complex # 3 was constructed as an extension of Petrochemical Complex #2 due to a rising demand for ethylene and other petrochemicals. Production of chemicals to meet this demand began in 1972.

Petrochemical Complex No. 2 section


 * Same comment for this section as others

1967 Yokkaichi Pollution Lawsuit

 * I might add the compensation of victims section to this section
 * This is probably a section which deserves a few more lines. What did the patients get for their efforts? What was the result for companies with ties to Showa Yokkaichi Oil's Petrochemical Complex No. 1. Were the lawsuits effective enough to change how the companies engaged with these pollutants?

Other Cases


 * I love that you have this section

Overall I think you do an excellent job of maintaining a neutral voice while presenting the necessary facts someone would need to understand the history and form an opinion about it. You obviously have some great sources here. You're nearly done!