User:Kris1019/Tencent Video/Khascall Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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 for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Kris1019

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kris1019/Tencent Video
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Tencent Video

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall, what I see that you changed is:

- shifting some of the tense from "is" to "was" (is the organization now out of business? what happened to it?)

- expanding the lead

- adding references

- creating a history section with a combination of the previous text and some of the latest news

Lead:

You've expanded the lead, but unfortunately the new reference (Baidu Baike) is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. The new lead also unfortunately lost the encylopedic tone of the previous version. The first sentence should give a broad overview, and the following sentences should each summarize the sections in the article. It makes sense to describe the service as well as some basics about the company.

Content:
The new content seems relevant and recent. Some topics I don't see in the article is more about the company's leadership, ownership, operation locations, or reviews of the products. There's a block at the bottom of the article describing all of the video properties, but there's not a mention of any of the notable media in particular. How was the news of the pricing change received? Are there controversies about this company? The article isn't oriented to equity gaps in particular.

Tone and Balance:

The new content has some balance issues in terms of maintaining an encylopedic tone; it's important not to praise the company or its products from your own perspective. What you'll want to do instead is talk about how the organization is portrayed in reliable sources.

Sources and References:

Some of the sources (like baidu) are considered unreliable by Wikipedia or may be more promotional than journalistic. One area of work for this article will be to find solid sources about the business -- New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, the Economist. These should be available through the UW Library, and librarians are super helpful. I also recommend taking a look at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=tencent+video&btnG= -- there have been some academic articles written about Tencent Video.

Organization:

The expanded sections make sense, and the writing is good, so definitely keep up the good work in this regard. I saw a few minor copyedits that need to be made.

Images and Media

It might be a bit difficult to identify good images. Some ideas might be headquarters for corporate offices, people using the product (like at trade shows), publicity stills from popular shows, etc. Take a look at Wikimedia Commons and see what you can come up with. Readers often really appreciate images.

Overall:

I think you're making progress, but there's some work left to do. I would particularly focus on finding good sources that can let you feed in solid new content in a fairly easy way.

Updated Review

Hi @Kris1019:

I see you swapped out a source and added two more -- one of which is the organization itself. You might find this sources list helpful as you evaluate additions: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

It looks like the other comments I made with respect to the lead, copyediting, and tone are yet to be addressed. Let me know when you'd like me to take another look -- the amount of improvement made so far is less than what we are expecting, so please consider finding more sources and tackling more topics.

Kaylea Champion (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)