User:Fir Gotten/Panda diplomacy/Selintopac 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead - Did not work on the lead for the article.
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No new content was added to the lead.
 * 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
The lead has a good amount of information in it already so she doesn't have to edit it to change it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes she added information that is related to panda diplomacy.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content she added is as recent from 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, everything she added is related to the topic and is relevant to the topic chosen.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, she doesn't argue against or for something.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? She doesn't have any claims that are biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, everything she has written is neutral with both sides.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added is not trying to persuade the reader in any way.

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?

The information added are all from reliable secondary sources. All of the links are current and work.

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?

All of the information she wrote is easy to read and makes sense. There are no grammatical or spelling errors.

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?

No images were added.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

All of the content she wrote about panda diplomacy for the article is very valid and allows the reader to learn more about this topic. All of her sources are correct and she cited correctly. There isn't much to be improved in.