User talk:Hillmap/sandbox

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Hillmap Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hillmap/sandbox

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Considering the article was created by the user, the lead was created by my peer. The only consideration I would suggest is the lead has no indication of the location of the subject (Japan). I believe it would strengthen the lead to know the location of the subject.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? He describes the subject and his background well but does not state he is Japanese specifically. You can deduce this from reading between the lines but not clear.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is a good description in this section.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The article is concise and well-appointed.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it provides relevant background information and transformative events in Oishi's life propelling him into activism.

Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation This content is important for victims of nuclear radiation and advocacy for the abolishment of nuclear weapons in Japan.

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? I believe the viewpoints are well represented.

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

I don't think so.

Tone and balance evaluation: The tone maintains neutrality and balance throughout the article. The sections are well organized and concise.

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all-new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, however, the footnotes numbers are all stating the same number.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, he used all sources I am aware of.

Are the sources current? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation There are limited sources for this article but I believe it is due to the nature of the subject. There are a few JSTOR and Japan Times articles of interest with further background on Oishi that may further develop his history.

Organization Guiding questions:

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

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from what I could tell.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the sections are relevant. Organization evaluation Well organized and relevant, the organization was good.

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

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but it might be worth adding one. A photo of the exhibit and Oishi would be interesting!

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 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? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It is the only notable gap on this project. There are only two sources.

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? Lacking in any infoboxes or images; I believe only an image applies.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation Considering you did this from scratch, I believe it was well done and a necessary addition!

Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation This was a great addition to Japanese advocacy of anti-nuclear activism and victims of radiation poisoning. Well done! Charstutz (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructor comments 2020

Matt, this is a great contribution to Wikipedia. I think he is an important figure who should be represented with an article. Thanks for being willing to build something from the ground up. I am reviewing the live version you have in the Wikipedia main space, which is updated from your sandbox version here. I do not have Oishi’s book in front of me, but I believe he talks about how his fight to get medical assistance led to the 1957 Atomic Survivors Medical Care Law. If I am right about this, that might be an important thing to include in the article.

• I agree with Charlotte’s review (talk page of your sandbox) that it would be good for you to say you are talking about Japan right off the bat. Either identify Oishi as Japanese, or the Lucky Dragon as a Japanese fishing vessel, or something like that.

• In the lead, “contaminated with radiation” does not need a comma after “contaminated”. Also in this sentence might say “resulting in two tons of tuna being buried….”

• If you are going to render Oishi’s name Japanese style (family name first, which you have done), then you should do that with other names as well. So, for example, Kuboyama Aikichi (instead of Aikichi Kuboyama).

• Might note if he attributes stillbirth of his child to fallout exposure. I see you deal with this in another section. It may be better to leave the details of this second paragraph out of the lead, since you repeat them later (with citations). It would be one thing if you were repeating them with significantly more detail, but it does not look like you are.

• Say what Tsukiji plaque is meant to commemorate, and why. It’s about the fish, right? Readers will not necessarily get that.

• In Activism section: what is “Bravo Hand Test”?

Elyssafaison (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)