User:Zjopiniano/Kubota Garden/Melancosmic Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zjopiniano


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kubota Garden

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Zjopiniano, here's 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 like it's been unchanged. The added content of the trees, plants, and amenities is not a part of the Lead, so if you were interested in making the Lead longer you could maybe put in a brief sentence or two about the content you've added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I think the Lead is short, but simple and easy to contextualize the whole article with. Not an overload of details or repeated information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead mentions the park's founder, its establishment date, and its maintenance today. There is no mention of the park's biology or activities and amenities sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead talks about information that is later addressed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it's pretty concise, it's not too burdensome with details or irrelevant info.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added looks relevant as it deals with the park's biology, amenities, and events. Although, I think the amenities and events sections could be combined to create a more comprehensive "Activities and Amenities" section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Looks like the content is up-to-date, comes from some recent sources and the park's official website.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Doesn't seem to be, the sections are addressed pretty well. Again, I'd recommend combining "Amenities" with "Events".
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article talks about the park's roots to Japanese culture in the history section and the Kubota Garden Foundation's commitment to spreading appreciation for Japanese gardens. I wonder if there are any events that take place at the park specific to Japanese culture? Also, what are the fundraisers, volunteer work, and publications that the Kubota Garden Foundation offers? It's not clarified.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the added content seems non-biased and focuses on facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article doesn't seem to want to persuade the reader in any way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think so. It's pretty well-balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the added content appears purely informational. No vague statements or biases that I can tell.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I can see the sources under the References section, but they're not cited in the article yet.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, there is mostly botanical and amenity information for the park.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Information includes types of plants (names, heights, physical features, etc.) and the types of activities available at the park.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources appear mostly current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not so much individual authors, more along the lines of groups or organizations in the sources. Looks like the two sources before the editing came from individual authors, one addresses the history of Japanese first-generation immigrants in North America.
 * 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://southseattleemerald.com/2020/10/01/book-review-spirited-stone-lessons-from-kubotas-garden/
 * https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/majestic-kubota-garden-is-refreshed-and-refreshing/
 * https://napost.com/2020/joy-okazaki/
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Having some trouble with the first link: Cedrus Atlantica (Glauca Group) - Plant Finder, https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?kempercode=c203 . The website might be down or maybe there is a connection error on my end, but I'd check this to make sure it works for you.
 * Also, this source brought up an error for me: Joyce, Alice. (2006). Gardenwalks in the Pacific Northwest: Beautiful Gardens Along the Coast from Oregon to British Columbia. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot. ISBN 978-0-7627-3818-2; OCLC 62302537.
 * What about using this link? I think it's the same or similar. https://books.google.com/books/about/Gardenwalks_in_the_Pacific_Northwest.html?id=IAhkvgAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
 * All other links appear to work, it's just these two above.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the trees and plants section is coherent, although the amenities section might be better as a short paragraph rather than bullet points, more like the events section below it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Grammar and spelling look good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Everything looks good. I'll mention again that adding the event section to the amenities section might look and feel better to a reader.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are some nice photos that have been uploaded about certain landscape features of the park that readers might want to see.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Captions are a little vague, but I guess there's not much to say about rock sculptures unless they've been officially named something specific.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, it looks like the photos added are your own work?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The photos are kind of small. Is there a way to resize them to make them larger and clearer?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I'd say so, there's some cool information on the botanical side of the park rather than just the history or organization. The present-day amenities are a nice addition too.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good length, nice photographs, interesting tree and plant info, written well, easy to follow
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I'd suggest citing the sources in the article, maybe combine the events and the amenities sections, resize images to be larger.