User:DriftWrench2k/Brooke989/sandbox/DriftWrench2k Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) User:Brooke989
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Brooke989/sandbox

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant, yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? As far as I can tell, yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some content could be added that isn't in the area mentioned on the Sandbox, so it could be expanded. Additionally, after some thought, I realized that a possible method to expand the article might include describing (neutrally) how the anime and games that the company has made have been received (and how the company's success has been), if you can find reliable sources about it.

Content evaluation

What is written seems useful and factual.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? It appears to be.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation

Balance is present, tone seems appropriate.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, each sentence is. Much better than mine in that regard.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The available literature on the topic does seem scarce, after a few google searches. Different word combinations could yield more results when paired with the topic name, however, and that might turn up some more useful information.
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation

Satisfactory.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Thus far, yes.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only nitpicky ones (I see only one, concerning a comma or lack of one (I forget which)).
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? N/A.

Organization evaluation

Sufficient for a sandbox.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article will benefit from this information.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Talking about the other creations of the company as well as some statistics about it.
• How can the content added be improved? It could have more content of similar quality, but I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't say mine has the same problem.

Overall evaluation

What is present is good, just keep up momentum and add to it!

Useful Notes/Suggestions:

I remembered that you mentioned that you'd had difficulty looking up info about Cygames. I found that the Japanese word for statistics is 統計, so a google search with the phrase "株式会社Cygames 統計" might well yield some useful findings about the company.

Additionally, this website looked like it could possibly have some useful information for you: https://sensortower.com/ios/publisher/publisher/561598806 .

Also, with expanding the article, you might consider looking at good articles of game companies, such as <Sega> (that's a link).

I suggest, with your future additions to the article, to focus on writing information in paragraph form more than in table form, as the article seems a bit too table-heavy at the moment.