User:Pisces Unicorn/Japanese mythology/YouDubStudent 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? Pisces Unicorn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pisces Unicorn/Japanese mythology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I could see

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?  Yes it appear to be neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It looked relatively un bias to me
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No not that I could see

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it seems to be
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are many listed sources that are referred  to across the article.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the are fairly current
 * 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? It appears to be well edited
 * 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? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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 very much
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It includes a lot new and updated information. New images were also added that improve the overall look of the article. Aslo added on size to the article as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Article appears to be well written as well as edited thoroughly. In my limited knowledge, I could not see anything that needed a lot of improvement.   There were two sections that needed information, but that is just typical of a draft.

Overall evaluation
I think that this draft is very well written. It contain a variety of information that is cited and relevant. The images do improve the look and aid the article in the delivery of information. Overall this is in my opinion as well written part that will improve the overall article significantly.