User:Arushilahiri/China-India Relations/Khushipdesai Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Arushilahiri

Link to work you are reviewing

User:Arushilahiri/China-India Relations

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

China–India relations

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has not been updated to reflect new content, so that is something that may or may not to be updated according to the content of the paper.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content is definitely relevant to the topic -- we can see a wider range and more depth into the economic policies between China and India, especially considering today's events and Modi's recent policies.

Is the content added up-to-date?

The content seems to be up-to-date and references the years and timeline during which the economic policies had impact/took effect.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I believe the content fits the article in general and each section only contains relevant information related to that particular subtopic.

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Some of the content was not necessarily presented in a neutral manner and spoke to me like an argumentative essay rather than a Wikipedia article. For example the following sentence: "Though he cannot outwardly play hardball with China for the sake of global deescalation, Modi’s stance certainly blares warning signs to China not to overstep their boundaries—both physically and metaphorically." Other usage of words like "went out the window" or "indeed" contributed more towards a conversational and argumentative stance, rather than attempting to present the information in a neutral manner.

Sources and References
All the new content seems to be well backed up by sources provided in the references section. The sources are valid and are updated, and the content seems to thoroughly reflect the sources. It seems like the sources are also drawn from a variety of authors and sources that will provide multiple different perspectives throughout the article.

Organization
I believe some parts of the article could include some more organization for readability. Some of the existing paragraphs become too long and possibly stray to different subtopics before returning to the original topic of the paragraph.

Images and Media
There were no included media and images in the article draft and this could be a good thing to supplement your article's content, especially parts that may represent specific perspectives that are not commonly believed.

Overall Impressions
Overall, the additions were very meaningful and thorough. I believe the main two parts to work on were the ones highlighted above like the Tone and Balance and the Organization. Otherwise, great job! It seems like you were able to merge together your paper's content very well within the article and have definitely made the content richer.