User:Ksihapanya/Kaoru Ishikawa/Ssims11 Peer Review

General info
Ksihapanya
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ksihapanya/Kaoru Ishikawa/Bibliography
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Kaoru Ishikawa

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I do not think it was updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it mentions that the article is about a specific person.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is a good amount of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is all relevant information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is up-to-date content.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing that I have seen. It all looks like it belongs where it is at.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I do not see any gaps, it looks all like it belongs in the places that they are.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It is all neutral content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it is all neutral content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think it is the right amount of information.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is all neutral content.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The added sources are all reliable.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes the content is accurate from the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They have good information the the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most of them are one author. There is one that is written by multiple people.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) These are really good sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think it fits really well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors that I have identified.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think it is all really well organized.

Images and Media
No images in this article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe the added content made the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds depth that was not there before. It expands the background as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think adding a photo of the person would improve the overall article. I believe the information in the article is good.