User:Gilbertltaylor/Textile design/Pingxia 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)

Gilbertltaylor


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Textile design

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
The Lead has been updated. The introductory sentence has been improved to describe the topic in a more concise and clear way. It also provide brief descriptive sentences for the major contents of the article. The new Lead has added some new information about Textile Design disciplines and environment. Overall, the Lead is concise and not overwhelming for readers.

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 new content is closely related to the topic. The three disciplines are all in the range of Textile Design and the definitions are up-to-date. I didn't find anything missing in the main content. The disciplines sections is detailed and full of knowledge.

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 content he added to the article is in neutral tone. I didn't see any claims that appear biased toward a particular position. The viewpoints are presented in a neutral position. The content added by him doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

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
All new content is backed up by reliable sources, such as published books and articles. The sources reflect the available literature on textile design and they are also current. I checked some links and they work well.

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 added is clear. It may not be easy to read for people who are amateurs of art because there are some jargons. He provide the links of these jargons and that would help. I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors. I think the content is well-organized, especially the three sections of disciplines.

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
The article has images to help people understand the topic. The images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are next to the related sections and they are visually appealing.

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?

Overall evaluation
The content added did improve the overall quality of the article. It makes the article more complete and well-informed. The strengths include the clear and concise Lead, the introductory sections of three disciplines of textile design, and the new content which talks about the environment. I think the new article is good enough. Maybe it can be improved by adding some examples and artists of textile design.