User talk:Kate H. Vo/Susan Oki Mollway

Peer Review 11/1
The Lead is concise and written well explaining exactly what the article subject is about. The content in early life and education is thorough. The dates should probably be written like "1973 until 1976" or "1973 to 1976" not with a - dash in between. Need more content for her personal life, but good start. Professional career is very well written. Make sure to either italicize or put in quotations the works that she has authored depending on what they are. I would recommend making a separate section for her awards and associations.

Federal and Judicial Service is well written. Maybe add sub-headings to divide up the work she has done in her judicial career. Good job on the Notable Cases!

References I see the references are still a work in progress.

Overall impression: I think this is a really great start to your article! I like the idea of adding litigation and advocacy, judicial decision, and the sub-headings under judicial service etc. The article reads very well and has mostly good grammar. This sentence has some comma splices: "After her nomination lapsed without action by the United States Senate, she was renominated on January 7, 1997, to the same seat." delete the comma after 1997. Literally Legally Blonde (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hunter's Peer Review--Great work!! Peer Review: Lead:

Currently, the lead is short, but, in comparing with the original article, I see that you add that she is also the first "Japanese-American" appointed, which is definitely important! There are no noticeable errors here. Potentially, this could be expanded by adding her former work in law and education, but that may not be needed.

Content:

The content itself is perfectly concise and unbiased. Whereas detail is given to her work as a federal judge, you give the appropriate attention to her accolades and early life. No clear mistakes in grammar or structure were found either. Overall, it might be necessary to add slightly more information about her early life, potentially details about her parents or upbringing that would be relevant. Specifically, I thought your section on her "Professional career" was very well-structured and concise as well.

Tone/Balance:

There are no apparent issues in the tone or balance of this draft. Overall, it is unbiased and doe snot appear to have any issues of irrelevant detailing. In fact, it could be slightly expanded in some areas. Specifically, you give weight to her ascension to the court, which is great as well. The cases could also be expanded on to give more attention to these decisions and their importance.

References:

There are some missing references in the section about her "Professional career," specifically at the beginning. As well, the last paragraph of "Federal judicial service" may be missing some as well. Otherwise, your citations are well-chosen and valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValidWikiLuvr (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)