User:Xvh5158/Ant Group/Npb5183 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? Xvh5158
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Ant Group (I'm not sure if this is what I'm supposed to be reviewing as I found this peer review exercise very confusing!)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, I don't feel like it has anything which is overly detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The sources used look up to date/recent
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content pertains to "Ant Group"
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No I do not feel it deals with an equity gap as it is about a company.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Everything presented appeared factual and neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Everything presented seemed factual and neutral.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As this is about a company I don't feel there are really any contrasting viewpoints.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the content is purely informative.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? If this is asking if all information has two sources then no, but most of the information can be linked back to a source.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I didn't examine every source in close detail but it would appear so.
• Are the sources current? None of the sources seemed outdated.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Factual information not historical or narrative in nature so, yes?
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links I clicked worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I particularly liked the addition of charts!
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There could be a little more information but I'm not sure if this is a new article or just updating an existing one.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? If the charts are new and not imported from an existing article than yes.
• Are images well-captioned? Charts are not images so no?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes I believe so.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes the chart is not contained in the first opening textual segment.

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? Yes the topic is notable the company this covers is apparently huge.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are only three sources so far but the topic is more about reporting facts about the company than diving into its history etc.
• 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? The sandbox does not currently link to other wiki articles.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The sandbox does not, the main page does.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The information you want to add seems like it would be a helpful addition to the article in my opinion. The profitability and revenue of the company among other things are definitely one of the reasons I could envision someone visiting their Wikipedia page.
• What are the strengths of the content added? It's probably some of the most sought after information, people often look up companies to see statistics about them which this provides.
• How can the content added be improved? With what you have in the sandbox there isn't a lot that I would improve on. Instead I would look for new content to add rather than refining what you already have.