User:Natalie Wilkinson/Shozo Tanaka/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? Natalie Wilkinson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Natalie Wilkinson/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. Natalie, you might think about adding a sentence or two to the Lead that mentions Shozo's importance as a philosopher since you are adding a large section on his philosophy.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not right now. A sentence mentioning his importance as a philosopher and author would solve this problem.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. I don't know anything about Shozo Tanaka, but he seems to have had a lasting philosophical influence on Japanese environmentalism. It makes perfect sense to discuss his philosphy in his Wikipedia article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so.

Content evaluation
'''I think the content you've added is helpful for readers and important to the topic. Obviously, it needs to be edited and revised in complete sentences, but it all seems to be valuable information.'''

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? Not really. Did Shozo have environmental allies or enemies. It might help to incorporate some othe viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't think so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It's hard to tell without footnotes, but your parenthetical references seem to indicate you are working with a reputable book by Stoltz.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I'm not an expert on the topic, but it looks like you are pretty much exlclusively using Stoltz. Have other authors written about Shozo? The preexisting article cites "The Ashio Copper Mine Pollution Case: The Origins of Environmental Destruction" and includes a link. I know nothing about the source, but it might be helpful.
 * Are the sources current? The Stoltz book is from 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
'''I looked up the book by Roert Stoltz, and it looks like a solid source. Try to find other sources if there are any available.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think it still more of an outline. It needs to be reformatted as complete sentences.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few. Like I said, it just needs to be edited and reformatted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The sections make sense.

Organization evaluation
'''This is probably the area most in need of improvement. It looks like parts of your article are still in the outline phase. Once they are edited and reformated, I am sure it will look great.'''

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No. There is already a picture in the existing article, so it's not completely necessary to include another one.
 * Are images well-captioned? The existing image is part of the text box.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The existing image does
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Since there is already a great image on the page, I'm not sure that you need to add another one.

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? The existing article is pretty good, but it's essentially just a Lead. Your additions will make the article much more informative and comprehensive.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The existing article doesn't discuss Shozo's philosophy at all. Your section on philosophy will be a big addition.
 * How can the content added be improved? Your writing obviously still needs a lot of editing and reformatting. I think that's the biggest issue with your rough draft. If you spend some time rethinking, rewriting, and reformatting what you already have, this could be a great addition to Wikipedia.

Overall evaluation
You still have a lot of work to do, but this looks like it's going to be a great Wikipedia page.