User:Seang71/Babymetal/SRAShakur 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? Kittehwarlord
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KittehWarlord/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

From what I see, the lead has not yet been worked on. Is the name of the article you are working on just Babymetal? It may already be there, but I suggest you link the actual article or post the original writing for easy comparison for what is being added.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Has not yet worked on the lead and I am not sure what the original article link says. I would make sure every section of the article is briefly discussed in the lead. If this info is missing, then you can add it in.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the source material is all from the 2000s.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No

Content evaluation
I think the sources you are using look great. It seems you have a ton of source material, which is good. This shows the reach of your topic and the importance it has. I would suggest writing in paragraph format instead of bullet points to help with the flow and readability of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

In the abroad section, the quotes used are mostly of positive reception to Babymetal's music. I think it would help to add a section of the negative criticism that was received abroad. This would showcase a larger perspective of how foreign audiences perceive the band.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I feel it might be majority positive of Babymetal, which may be fine.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I would like to see an equal representation of positive and negative viewpoints.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Some of the quotes used seem to persuade the reader to like Babymetal. I.e. "This is Japanese pop music, created behind-the-scenes by some fiendish Machiavellian genius . . . "

I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing. As long as you stray from opinionated language on your part it should be okay.

Tone and balance evaluation
More equal representation of the opinions and reception of Babymetal.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, citations look good.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

It looks like there is a good mix of Japanese sources and English sources.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Sources and references evaluation
It looks like a lot of sources are from non-academic sources. I would suggest finding some peer reviewed journals or books to help in this area. A lot of the source material is opinion pieces on the band, which could skew the bias in the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Not easy to read yet. Since you just uploaded this, I can tell it is your notes for what you want to write instead of integrating it into article format. I think organizing the info and removing the bullet points would significantly help readability.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

brittian to Britain

The grammar here needs to be worked on a lot to help the flow. Since it is in note form currently, the grammar is not great but can be easily fixed once writing the paragraphs.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes

Organization evaluation
Write in paragraph format and fix the grammar errors.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images added

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?

I cannot see the overall article, but these notes taken seems like a good start to expand on what is there. I think you rely a little too heavily on interviews and quotes. Try to reel it in with something more than opinion pieces.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Gives the reader more info on the reception to Babymetal abroad and how others perceive the band.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Use more academic sources and expand from the quotes.

Overall evaluation
I think you are at a great starting point for expanding on this article. I think you should start integrating this info into article format or what is currently there on the article.