User:Togata27/Nisei Women Translators during WWII/Davidxosh Peer Review

General info
Togata27
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Togata27/Nisei Women Translators during WWII
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
{| class="wikitable" Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:
 * Peer review
 * Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it introduces the topic very well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes other than the notable women translators (last section)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I am not an expert on this but I would say concise. Every sentence primarily introduces something new that introduces a topic in the article, so I think it is well done.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The Kenneth Uni aspect is a little vague and isn't directly related but I'd argue still relevant. Also the civil censorship part may be stretching but again I am not an expert, just seems a little disconnected.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? only one source is from last 15 years from what I saw, but it's an old topic so not sure what up to date is exactly entailing.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think saying they wanted to join the war for promising and adventurous reasons may be stretching it. The point after about education and war experience covers that.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

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? The notable translators are spoken of purely in a high aspect, so may be an issue not sure.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No other than whats mentioned above sort of.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) mostly. Paraphrased very well
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? no
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and yes
 * 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.) the following source could be helpful: Matsumoto, Valerie. “Desperately Seeking ‘Deirdre’: Gender Roles, Multicultural Relations, and Nisei Women Writers of the 1930s.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 1991, pp. 19–32. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3346573 . Accessed 14 May 2024.
 * 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 very well written and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? in the line "Between the years of September 1945 to February 1946, after Japan’s surrender and American troop’s occupation in Japan," in may want to be changed to "of". In the line "The majority of Nisei women translators were held back to process the captured documents from prisoners of war." it may be more clear to write is as "were held back in order to process the captured documents"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, very well done

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only one. More images could be helpful
 * Are images well-captioned? Of the image that exists yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? it would be helpful if it was bigger. I didn't really find myself looking at it until I saw this section, but it's such a cool picture you should highlight more

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes
 * 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes nice!
 * }