User:Madsngo/White coffee/Tif0409 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I did not see a lead.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I did not see a lead.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?I did not see a lead.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?I did not see a lead.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?I did not see a lead. (The top of the article is contents only, not the Lead.)

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think the content added are very relevant to the topic.
Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content is missing.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the tone is balanced.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all the viewpoints adequate.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it has a neutral tone.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, it is.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they affect the available literature on the topic.
Are the sources current? They are all accessed in 2020, thus very current.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is easy to understand, and clear.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, I noticed a few minor grammatical mistakes.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think some subheading can be merged. For instance, roasting and roasting characteristics.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but not what whit coffee looks like.
Are images well-captioned? Yes,they are well-captioned.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it is the user's own work.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but I definitely recommend adding more images. Such as the process of making the white coffee and coffee from different countries.

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?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I believe after adding more information to the new Heading, the article would be upgraded a lot.
What are the strengths of the content added? Changing some sentence structure, also adding new sources, the content is very inclusive, it contains different country's white coffee.
How can the content added be improved?