User:Dengtianhei/Dushu Lake/Emmasandell Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Dengtianhei


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dengtianhei/Dushu_Lake?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dushu Lake
 * Dushu Lake

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The Lead has not been updated from the original document. I recommend maybe adding some information that will link the lead to the history and transportation sections you added later in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The Lead already clearly described the article’s topic, however, it can be elaborated on in order to incorporate information about the history and transportation.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The Lead has a little information about the future sections, however, adding a couple extra sentences can strengthen the Lead.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The Lead only contains relevant information.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead is concise and does not contain information that adds too much detail.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, adding information about the history and transportation is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

The content added is from recent sources.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There can be further sections added to the article to expand on this region in order to strengthen the article overall.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

This article focuses mainly on a region and not as much on the individuals living there.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

The content added is very neutral and does not add unnecessary biases.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims that are biased throughout the article.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoints are represented at a similar level.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content added does not persuade the reader, but focuses rather on informing the reader.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, the added information is accompanied by references to avoid plagiarism.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

The content accurately expresses what the cited sources are backing.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources do a very good job at reflecting the available literature on the topic.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, the sources are current.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The sources do not include historically marginalized individuals, but they do a good job at being diverse and adding relevant information.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

These articles are very strong, however, there could be a few peer-reviewed articles that could be even better.


 * 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?

The content is properly added in a way that is easy to read.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are no spelling errors and grammar can be improved only slightly.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The sections are very well organized in a way that makes the reader understand the information.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The one image that is on this article accurately shows the region and makes it easy to understand


 * Are images well-captioned?

The image is well-captioned.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

The images do adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The image is accurately laid out at the beginning of the article so the reader knows exactly about the region.

~.