User talk:Charstutz/Tokaimura nuclear accident

Charlotte, please go back and use the form from the tutorial to evaluate this article. The evaluation questions included a whole list of items including content, sources, tone, images, and much more. Your evaluation here is too brief and does not cover all the items asked for. Elyssafaison (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Charlotte! Here is my peer review of your article draft! I hope you find it useful! 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? (provide username)

Charstutz

Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Charstutz/Tokaimura nuclear accident

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

I'm not sure if the lead is in this draft/being edited or not. If not, then it hasn't. If it is (and is in the space between the infobox and the contents), then it definitely has.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, if it isn't in the draft. If it is in the draft, then there is not really an introductory sentence that gets right to the topic of the article.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not really, the lead (as it is in the original article) does not say anything apart from the one sentence explaining that there were two accidents at the site. If the lead is the section between the infobox and the contents, then it still really does not.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No (if the one in the original article). If it is the previously mentioned section, then it does contain quite a bit of information not present in the article.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The original lead is technically neither-it needs more detail about sections of the article. If the lead is the previously mentioned section, than it is too detailed. Quite a bit of the information would probably be better in its own section in the article.

Lead evaluation

The lead does not appear to have been edited at all (if it is not in the draft). If it is the section between the infobox and contents, then it is definitely too detailed. Quite a bit of the information--basically all of the little sections except for the one titled "The Nuclear Accidents"--should probably be in its own section, maybe one with general background information about the nuclear plant. That forth section would work as a lead, with a couple more sentences talking about the causes, evacuations, and aftermaths of the two incidents.

Overall, though, I am still confused as to whether the lead is even in the draft or not.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes. I am a little less certain about the "Background" section's relevance, but it is at least somewhat relevant.

Is the content added up-to-date?

I am not sure. The one new source I can clearly identify was published in 2000, but other sources all seem to come from around that time frame anyway.

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

The "Background" section talks about Japan's relationship with nuclear energy rather generally, and while I can see that fitting with the article, I keep thinking it doesn't quite fit. Also, there is quite a bit more information regarding the 1999 incident than there is for the 1997 incident. It would be nice to see a bit more information about the earlier incident, if such information exists.

Content evaluation

I am wondering if there are sources available that are more recent than the early 2000s or not--if there are, it would be nice to see some used. There is also a bit of an imbalance in the content presented about the two incidents. Other than that, the content that has been added does considerably improve the article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

The first sentence in the "Aftermath" section for the 1999 incident could be a little biased. Apart from that, the new content reads as neutral.

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

No, nothing appears to to be heavily biased, but there is a sentence (see previous) that might be a tiny bit suspect.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I am having a bit of a hard time trying to pick out the different viewpoints, but as far as what I can identify, there does not appear to be any imbalance

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

I don't think so.

Tone and balance evaluation

For the most part, the tone is neutral and viewpoints are fairly balanced (as far as I can tell). I am unsure if it is a good thing or not that I am having a hard time picking out the different viewpoints or not. There is also a slightly suspect first sentence in the "Aftermath" section for the 1999 incident that sort of implies that neither government nor company officials were rather incompetent (whether true or not). I think there is probably a way to get point across about how chaotic the situation was without such an implication. However, the majority of the content is fine.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

As far as I can tell, yes. They all seem to be solid sources

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

I'm not sure what the extent of the available literature is, but there are a wide variety of sources, so I would assume so.

Are the sources current?

Most of them appear to be from the early 2000, but I also do not know what the more recent research on the subject is like or if there is any that isn't problematic.

Check a few links. Do they work?

I checked a couple of what I assumed were links to sources (they were in the references) and found that the were links to wikipedia pages on the publishing entities. However, I also think those were not additions made with this draft. I also realized that there are article links that work in the original article, and that they probably didn't transfer over.

I did check the one source-related link I knew had been added, and it worked and linked directly to the article being cited. I also tried a couple of the links within the article to other articles, and they all worked.

Sources and references evaluation

I am unsure if the fact that most of the sources used (including the one I know was recently added) date to the early 2000s is a case of the available variety of literature or not. If it is not, though, then there should be a couple of more recent sources added. The one link to a source that was added/seemed to transfer into the sandbox all the way worked very well (and led directly to the cited article), and the links within the article all seem to work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

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

The content that does not concern the technicalities of either incident is clear and easy to read. However, I was quite confused by the technical terminology--I think I got the gist of it, but it is still confusing

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

To the best of my knowledge, no

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

It is well organized, even if a couple of sections/subsections should probably be moved.

Organization evaluation

The more technological bits are quite confusing to someone who knows very little about the subject matter. If possible, the article needs some kind of clarification of some of the harder to understand terminology would be helpful. Other than that, the content added is very well-organized and the non-technical bits were quite clear and easy to read.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Peer did not add images or media, so N/A

Are images well-captioned?

N/A/

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/A/

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/A/

Images and media evaluation

N/A

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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the additional background information is very helpful in setting up the two incidents. However, there is still quite a bit less information present about the 1997 incident than the 1999 incident.

What are the strengths of the content added?

It does help make some of the more technical bits a bit more understandable. It also provides important (and previously missing) background information about the plant itself, which helps put the two incidents in context.

How can the content added be improved?

A few of the background sections should be moved around--they appear to possibly be part of the lead, and they should be in their own section. Also, some of the citations are a little hard to find, and clarity in what/where they are would be very helpful. More information (if available) on the 1997 incident would also be nice.

Overall evaluation

In general, the added content has improved the overall article quality in several ways. The new background info helps set the stage for the two incidents, even if some of it should be moved slightly, and there are also bits and pieces that make some of the more complicated terminology a bit easier to understand. More content about the 1997 incident (if possible) would make the article even better.Historyfan323 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC) - Hello Historyfan323!

I am sorry for the confusion, this is not the draft page I used! Link is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charstutz/sandbox Charstutz (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)