User:SGurmu/Peace Park (Seattle)/Melancosmic Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SGurmu


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SGurmu/Peace_Park_%28Seattle%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Peace Park (Seattle)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi SGurmu, here is my peer review for you.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead looks unaltered, but I think it still covers what is mentioned in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes the park's location, founder, and purpose.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does briefly describe the article's major sections, except for the vandalism section. Not sure if you want to include that or not in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead covers the topics and people addressed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's pretty concise and easy to understand, no irrelevant details.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added talks about the historical significance of the park and key figures in its creation, which is important information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It looks like the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There are some sections where information is missing, but it says you are still working on those so I assume you'll add the information later.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does address atomic bomb victims, Japanese American incarceration, and Quakerism in the context of the lives of the park's key figures.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * It seems a little less neutral in tone in areas because parts of the article read more like a story than an encyclopedia.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I wouldn't say heavily biased, but the section on Floyd Schmoe paints him in a particularly positive light. I don't think this is necessary, it's enough to mention that he was a Quaker activist/pacifist/philanthropist without saying that he led "a lifetime dedicated to bettering the lives of others" and other things along that nature, even though that is essentially true.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints seem good.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I'm not sure, I think the added content is necessary to telling the history of the park and its significance, but it seems like the neutrality is a little unbalanced in the phrasing. I'd suggest going for a more plain tone that reads less like a story and is more straightforward and factual. For example, "The community rallied and donated towards restoring the damages and held a celebration continuing to honor Sadako's legacy" could be changed to "The statue was later restored after the community donated towards its repair" to sound more neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, it looks like there are 4 more reliable sources added to the one that was there previously.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the content in the sources matches what is in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is a lot of interesting information added on the lives of Floyd Schmoe and Sadako Sasaki under the important figures section. I think it really benefits the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are recent, others are from the early 2000s regarding journalistic articles on the statue's vandalism.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there seems to be a good variety of sources and authors. There is one source from the Japan Times that is interesting.
 * 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 sources may be of interest to you:
 * https://www.cbd.int/peace/about/peace-parks/
 * https://www.historylink.org/File/9352
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked all the links, and they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is clear and easy to read, although the language becomes a little rhetorical at times.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Minor spelling and grammatical errors. For instance, when you wrote "At the young of two, her family..." I think you meant "At the age of two"?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think the "important figures" can fit underneath the "historical significance" section since Floyd Schmoe and Sadako Sasaki relate to the history of the park.
 * Also, it looks like Sadako Sasaki's section is a sub-section of Floyd Schmoe's section. Was that intentional? I guess it makes sense since he took inspiration from her life to found the park, but it would also make sense for her section to have the same heading as Schmoe's since they're both central figures to the park.

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 note saying that original images might be uploaded soon, but there are none at the moment.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I assume they will since the note says you are going to take the photos yourself?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think the article benefits from having a history section and explaining the figures involved in the creation of the park. The article does feel and look more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good length, relevant historical background, interesting info on the people involved, various reliable sources, article information is cited throughout
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the main thing I'd suggest is making the writing more neutral in tone and encyclopedic. Also minor things like considering the section layout, whether you want to incorporate the important figures section into the historical significance section or not. Maybe link major topics to other Wikipedia articles, like World War II, University of Washington, and Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park.