User:DOGEVOL2/Anarchism in China/Siyi Shen 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? DOGEVOL
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:DOGEVOL/Anarchism in China

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the Lead has not been updated with brief description of the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead presented in the article do clearly describe 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
Because there is no Lead updated, the Lead presented in the article includes the following sections. All the subtitles added for the new paragraphs clearly describes the main idea of the paragraphs. The only thing is to add the summarization of the new content to the Lead.

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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Under the section "A Daoist critique of state autonomy", the beginning is not appropriate. In fact, the whole section focus on Daoism plays an important role in the Chinese anarchism. But it doesn't mean "many political thinkers" unless there are other schools of thought which can support the Chinese anarchism.
 * 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, the tone is objective.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? At least the the new content with citation are from journals or publishers, which are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, 7 resources are listed and all related to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some works, please check link 1 and 7 on Bibliography page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No obvious errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Contents 2&4 express the topic clearly. In fact, I am a little bit confused about the "A Daoist critique of state autonomy", if the paragraph is not under this section, I will get lost. This paragraph is not connected to the subtitle closely enough. Maybe it is better to rethink it. This part should be more direct about the link between Daoism and Chinese anarchism.

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?

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.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? All the content added is closely related to the topic and informative.
 * How can the content added be improved? There is no problem with the content. The only small problem is the tone. It is better to avoid using individual cases to reflect the whole. Also, the content should not only related to the topic but also need to be highly consistent with the section heading.