User:BSC20/Intimate partner sexual violence/Yezi Fang 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) BSC20
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BSC20/sandbox

Lead （Belicia did not add new content in the 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? 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.

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.

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. But the exception is this sentence "The percentage of women who are victims of physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner is around seventy." According to the given source, it is generally talking about intimate partner sexual violence, not domestic violence, which is not consistent with the topic of this subheading.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. Most of them are current, although two sources are from 2013 and 2014.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes; No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it can exactly deliver the meaning.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The word "Xingiang" in the China section of the Religious discrimination articleI is a typo        which should be replaced with "Xinjiang".
 * content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content added is well-organized which make people easy to understand.

Images and Media (Belicia did not add images.)
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, Belicia added various new section of the topic which will definitely make the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The sources which supported the content Belicia added are really up-to-date. And the new information in the article give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? You can correct the typo and use another source to support the "Domestic violence". Overall, it is a well-developed article.