User:BSC20/Racial discrimination/BSC20 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) Yezi Fang
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yezi Fang/Italian Renaissance

Lead
Guiding questions: (this section is not applicable since the student is not adding to the lead)


 * 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? Mostly. The sentence: "In these persecutions and in response to Laity’s challenge to Church authority, bishops played an important role, as they gradually lost their rights to secular authority, which led to the development of more radical religious authority, including the persecution of pagans." should be phrased differently, and in a proper manner. It seems like original research.
 * 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? Mostly. Some sources are tertiary sources, such as an encyclopedia. Also, I am not sure if the "History Hit" source is a reliable one.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Some are, while some are not.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Not completely. There are some grammatical errors, and some sentence structures are inadequate. For example, the text switches from past to present tense, and should remain in past tense. Here is another example: "In addition, the Roman Church collected wealth from believers in the Middle Ages, such as the sale of indulgences, which was papers the Church declared that people who buy the indulgences, their sins could be forgiven." The sentence structure does not enhance reading, and there is a grammatical error. It should say "...which were papers..." because 'indulgences' is plural.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. Explanations are provided immediately above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (This section is not applicable)


 * 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 (this section is not applicable)
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? New important information on the topic is presented.
 * How can the content added be improved? Sentence structure, grammatical errors, and verb tenses should be revised. Also, sources should be evaluated in order to check their reliability.