User:Bizui888/User:Yuzhan Yuzhan/sandbox/Bizui888 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): Yuzhan Yuzhan/sandbox
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yuzhan Yuzhan/sandbox

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? The peer only gives descriptions what he's going to write, not exactly a introduction paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really. Again, the peer only gives descriptions what he's going to write, not exactly a main paragraph of a description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? 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 over represented, 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? No, I've noticed that some of the source are from a blog, which does not considered as a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes. Most of the source showed its from 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All of them work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are no content, only descriptions of this peer about what he's going to write.
 * 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? It seems like the peer have a clear mind of what he's going to write in the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is not complete yet. Although the peer does not have a specific content yet, the descriptions still looks strong and clear.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The peer seems like he clearly know how to break down each sections and have a clear mind of what he's writing.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe the peer should start writing some actual and specific content

Overall evaluation
The peer's sandbox shows the audience what he's going to do clearly, I suggest the peer to keep up the good writing at the same time start writing some actual content instead of just the descriptions.