User:Zealora/Amaterasu/Fordhuntington1 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? (provide username) Amaterasu
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zealora/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It doesn't appear that they will be adding anything to the lead, rather other information in the wiki page.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I would say that the lead is rather straight forward and easy to understand.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes there is a table of contents.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the lead is in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that it is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content being added seems like it will add another layer of understanding regarding the debate of and different views of Amaterasu
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything currently in the article seems to be relevant and up to date.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, but gives the different sides of debate regarding Amaterasu.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, and that is precisely what this author is adding, so I think that they are good additions.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No not necessarily, it just lays out different viewpoints.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I checked all of the sources and they seem to be reliable, academic sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, two of the sources are more focused on human perception of shrines and religion in Japan, and the third source seems to be focused on the actual lore and legend of Amaterasu.
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? The only links are citation links, and they work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? At the moment, the content is more of an outline, though there are some cited lines they will add and they all are clear and concise.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? In their outline is isn't quite organized yet, but I am sure they will organize it in a orderly fashion.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - No images or Media added at this time.

• 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?

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? Yes, I think that by adding information about the debate and different opinions/reception of the goddess will give the reader a better idea of the subject as a whole.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content added gives the entire article a better, all-encompassng picture and gives the reader an idea of the big picture topics surrounding it.
• How can the content added be improved? I think that the content added could just be elaborated on a bit, giving a little more depth about these things, why the way they are, and how they came to be.

Overall evaluation

Overall, I think that the pieces added to this article are off to a great start and once the editor adds more detail to the additions they are making, they will be greatly improving the article, giving readers a much better look at Amaterasu.