User:Eddie943586/Basketball in China/Zijieke 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)
 * Eddie943586
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Eddie943586/Basketball in China

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
There is new content. The Lead seems to be biased and does not represent the article fully.

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 content is relevant and up to date.

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 overall tone is not neutral. The content is biased and shows many opinions. The first sentence "The basketball in China erupted with..." is problematic because this is an opinion. Also, stating that "basketball is the most famous sport in China" is also an opinion. "After the formation of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, China looked to sports, including basketball, as a way to create diplomatic relations" is also an opinion or interpretation.

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 links work but the sources are not necessarily reliable. The sources are mostly opinionated and persuasive, which are not good sources to use.

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
The content has many grammatical and punctuational errors. The content is broken down but the sections do not seem to reflect the best discussion topics. Also, the article talks about Yao Ming in detail, but he probably has his own wikipedia page already.

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
There are two images. The captions are vague. "Team China" doesn't tell the reader what year or where the photo was taken. The images aren't 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?

New Article Evaluation
The article does meet Notability requirements. The article may need to work a little more on the patterns. The article does link to other articles.

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
Overall, the tone should be more subjective and factual. Grammar and spelling could be better. The style and flow could also be improved. The content added was detailed, but it could be organized in a more effective way. The sources also seem to be a little unreliable.