User:OctopusSuction/Science and technology in South Korea/MellowSandwich 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

 * Jacob H (OctopusSuction)
 * User:OctopusSuction/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The Lead has changed from a simple "science in korea hass advanced over the years" to a full-on paragraph. Very big difference.
 * 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?      Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?      No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?      Not very detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?     Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?      There is one new, up-to-date source, which is the south korean foreign law guide in 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?    Nothing missing, but left open to be added to.

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?        Yes
 * Are the sources current?     Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?      Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?      Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?      Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?       Yes

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 a single image. Maybe a couple more could be added?
 * Are images well-captioned?       It tells what the image is, yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?        Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?         It kind of just sits there in the middle. Doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, but isn't attention grabbing.

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 article feels much more complete. Especially that Lead.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?       The Lead is improved giving a more fleshed out background, the topic seems understood by the author.
 * How can the content added be improved?       Add a picture or two. Maybe someone important to the field of research in Korea.

Overall evaluation    9/10

 * Thank you very much for the peer review! I think that is a good idea to add some more pictures. I will also continue to flesh out the sections of the article. Thank you!!