User:Dtzung/Arria Ly/Chenle1113 Peer Review

General info
Arria Ly
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Dtzung/Arria Ly
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):User:Dtzung/Arria Ly

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.)

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?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the Lead concise is not too long but includes everything needed.

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?

Yes.

Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes.

Is the content added neutral?

Yes.

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?

Persuade the reader.

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

Yes.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

Yes.

Are the sources current?

Yes.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?

Yes.

Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

I think there are no better sources available.

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?

Some grammatical errors.

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

Yes, it's well organized.

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.

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.