User:Cation2020/Liu Na/Cation2020 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? Perkins5516
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1M_knlaZLE6H4BsOJ4Fxoq4LQ6QGANx2oJfn7tYM_Y/edit

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?

Lead evaluation
While the lead is concise, it could be strengthened by additional information to convey the significance of Liu's work. The lead content appears to be relevant though.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The education portion flows well but could use some refinement in terms of transitions and verb tenses. While the lead is concise, it could be strengthened by additional information to convey the significance of Liu's work. For the "Publications" section, stating that her work has been categorized as "highly cited" by the Web of Science would be helpful. Then for the "Awards" section, a brief description of each award would help readers understand the significance of each honor.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is neutral. Addition of more sources would diversity the viewpoint.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The references could be further developed with more sources. The existing sources appear relevant.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Organization is clear but there are some grammatical errors. The flow of the sections is clear.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
(Note: The editor shared a google doc with me so that I could review her work and leave my review here on the talk page) The editor has a good start with the article on Liu Na! The education portion flows well but could use some refinement in terms of transitions and verb tenses. Considering the existing underdeveloped page for Liu Na, the editor has contributed content. Overall, good framework! --~