User:Ella Xu/Chongqing hot pot/Blasianmanda 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) Ella Xu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ella Xu/Chongqing hot pot

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There has not been any new content updated in this article's lead section. And when comparing this with the original article, we can see that the lead has not been updated and is the same. The only thing updated in the lead is the Contents table to guide readers.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The lead includes an introductory sentence that is clear and describes Chongqing Hot Pot is eaten at restaurants and is similar to Malatang and stir-fry mala xiangguo. That hot pot can be eaten with all kinds of foods: pork, chicken, chinese sausage, beef, duck, etc.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does include a content table. There are not descriptions of the articles section in the lead, however there is "Summary of Article" section underneath the lead section where the article editor breaks down what she will talk about and change throughout the article. She will add the different recipes of Chongqing hot pot, how people prepare and cook it. That a section of the history of hot pot that will contain the ancient times and famous stories of hot pot. The 3rd section of cultural aspects and forth part of hot pot recommendations.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It contains information that has not yet been presented in the article, but I presume it will after the editor changes the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead does not have a whole lot of content other than what hot pot is similar to and what it can be eaten with.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic of hot pot, however inputting recommendations towards the end of the article... Wikipedia may view this as advertising since recommendations are opinionated.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is difficult to tell if the content is up to date, but in the reference section all of the sources are after the 2000s and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a lot of content missing regarding the sections to be added as the editor stated in their article summary section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. It does not suggest bias towards anything.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not any claims as of right now. However, there may be some bias if the recommendation section is added, depending on how the editor goes about it.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is little to no new content aside from the article summary that contains what sections the editor will add.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Unknown due no new content added.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are all relevant.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? When going through the references, there are no links to click on, but the references are there. There are only links to other wikipedia articles that connects to content in sentences, for instance, "traditional chinese: 重慶火鍋"

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the conten is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is not much content yet to be considered very well-organized, however, with the future sections the editors mentioned they would add, yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes there are two images that align with the topic and give the reader an understanding of what Chongqing Hot pot looks like.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes the images are well-captions and specifically one of them of homemade hot pot.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes the images were released to the public domain in which anyone has the right to use this work for any purposes without any conditions.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Certainly.

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? The new content has provided a structure of what the article will come to be but has not yet improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is now a structure.
 * How can the content added be improved? More content and information to be added. Possibly the different types of hot pots and varieties. The history and origin for sure and how hot pot came to existence would be very important. And maybe even a gallery if possible. I think that the editor has already have a good structure they mentioned in their summary section that is soon to be added! Blasianmanda (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)- Amanda G :)