User:Yile5/Eileen Chang/Alicialuo 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? (provide username)
• Yile5
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Yile5

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?
• Not very clear introductory part.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
• Not clear

Lead evaluation

The lead is not very clear, might add some general descriptions about the Eileen Chang at the beginning, and make the introductory part into organized paragraph.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
• No

Content evaluation

Added contents are relevant to the topic and informations are up to date.

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?
• No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
• No

Tone and balance evaluation

The content is neutral and objective.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Yes
• Are the sources current?
• Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• One source by single author; no
• Check a few links. Do they work?
• Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Source is well-choose and reliable, may add more references.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• Not vet well organized, no separate sections.

Organization evaluation

Organization need to be improved and it's not very clear and easy to read.

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 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?
• Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• Adding more details
• How can the content added be improved?
• May add some sections and make the informations more organized, also the same reference repeated three times.

Overall evaluation

Overall I think this is a good draft on it's way, organizations still need to be improved. Keep up the great work!