User:Kronolyx/Cosplay restaurant/SRAShakur 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? Kronolyx
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kronolyx/draft1 sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has not been added to just yet. So far, the paragraph has been rearranged to help with clarity and flow with some sentences removed.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, it specifically describes what a cosplay restaurant is and also other variations like maid cafes, etc.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, this looks good.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, everything in the lead is discussed further down the article, i.e variants and North America.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead is concise and gets to the point of what will be covered in the article.

Lead evaluation
I do like how the original added the kanji or katakana for the words that are used. I also think the hyperlinks are quite helpful. From what I saw, nothing has been added to this section, only rearrangement, which I think is good because this section gives a good idea of what the article is going to be about. The only thing I see is there is a citation needed. It says that the citation was added, but I do not see this on the draft.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

It is hard to see what sentences were added to the article. You do use the {} symbol, but I think it would be helpful to show the original section on your sandbox so the changes can be directly compared to the original. From what I see, all the info added is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

The citations with dates show everything is from the 2000s, which I would say is up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I think more info can be added on Butler's cafes if you can find it. That might help strengthen the section.

Content evaluation
All sentences added were relevant to the article. Going to the original article page, it looks like the rearrangement does help the flow from what I compared.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, no biased language is used.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Not that I see.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

This article lacks politicization, so I do not see any particular viewpoint being taken.


 * 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?

One thing I noticed is there is a lack of academic sources, i.e. peer reviewed journals, books, etc. A lot of websites are used for sources, which is not inherently bad, but since it has not been reviewed its hard to say if that information is factual. Also, in the Maid cafe section, I do not see any citations. Adding the sources here will significantly help your article.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I would like to see more academic sources used.


 * Are the sources current?

Sources used are current.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The hyperlinks I checked work and so do the links to the websites at the bottom of the page.

Sources and references evaluation
For this section, just make sure you add sources to the maid cafe section and where the article says "citations needed" and you should be good to go.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

I believe the section on Cat maid cafes is new to the original article. This is well written. However, more citations here will help flesh this section out.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

"Within Akihabara alone, one can find several legitimate massage parlors, a maid eyeglass store, and at least one cosplay/maid izakaya." Add the comma after alone.

"Additionally, some locations, such as Maidreamin, allow customers to order different personality types from the menu. The server will then act out the selected personality type for the customer." Enclosing the statement "such as Maidreamin in commas helps the flow a bit. Also, removing the "for" in "allow for customers" sounds a little better.

Other than that, everything looks great.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes.

Organization evaluation
Minor grammar mistakes and more citations needed, but the content added looks good and is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, on the original article a photo of girls promoting the cafes is used. Maybe if you wanted, you could add more photos for the maid, butler, and cat sections.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes, it tells the reader what is happening in the photo.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

I am not sure if that one does or not.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The image could be rearranged in a more appealing way.

Images and media evaluation
If you wanted, you can add more photos for the subsections of the article. Otherwise, I think things look here.

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?

I think adding more examples helps tell the reader the range of cafes and the wide reach it has for people with different interests. So that definitely improves the quality of the article, making it more complete.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Gives the reader a fuller image of what cosplay restaurants are in a concise manner.


 * How can the content added be improved?

More citations can be added, and some of the sections, like the Butler cafe, can have a little more detail.

Overall evaluation
I think this is a great start to your wikipedia project. The lead section is rearranged well, and the content added helps make the article more complete. Really, the only criticism I have would be adding more citations and also having those come from academic sources instead of websites.