User:Haoyu Cui/China Geological Survey/Shanleighkirk Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Haoyu Chi


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Haoyu Cui/China Geological Survey - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * China Geological Survey - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content - The content that was added is all relevant to the topic, and helps expand upon the history of the China Geological Survey, as well as provides new information about the purpose of the organization. The information that was added, such as the current responsibilities of the organization, all appears to be up to date.

Neutrality - The content that was added to the article is neutral, and does not attempt to sway the reader towards one particular position. The content does not provide any opinion on the organization, such as its quality or effectiveness, and instead just provides an overview of its role and history. Additionally, the content does not include any biased or persuasive claims, and instead just focuses on facts about the organization, such as the number of people who have been employed.

Balanced Coverage - The content that was added to the article did not change the overall balance of it. While the majority of the article is focused on the history, the information that is presented is important to a reader's understanding of the organization, and therefore it makes sense to go into great detail about it. There were also other sections added to the article, including the current responsibilities of the organization, which help make it more balanced.

Sources and References - The information that has been added is all accurate, and reflects the information that is taken from the sources. There are a couple of sections or sentences in the article, such as the last paragraph in the "Republic of China period", that are not followed by a citation. Due to this, it is hard to tell where the information comes from, and whether it is backed up by a reliable secondary source. Additionally, most of the information that has been added comes directly from the organization's website, and therefore may not represent the full scope of literature that is available on the topic. The references could therefore be improved by looking for other sources, such as peer reviewed articles, that also discuss the topic. A potential source that could be used is:

https://nature.com/articles/112883a0

One of the links in the reference section also appears to not be working, and could be updated to improve the section.

Structure - The content that was added to the article is well organized, and broken down into clear sections and sub-sections, such as the different periods in the organizations history. The different sections of the article also follow a logical order, going from the history of the organization to its current responsibilities. This makes the article easy to follow, and also makes it easy for the reader to find the specific information that they are looking for.

Clarity - The content that was added to the article was clear and easy to read, and would be accessible for all people reading the article. However, the article did contain a few grammatical errors, such as fragmented sentences. The clarity could also be improved by removing or condensing some of the information that was included, especially in the history section. This would make the article overall more concise.

Talk Page - N/A

Overall Impressions/Suggestions for Improvement - Overall, the content that was added to the article improves its overall quality, and makes the article more complete and therefore more useful to people reading it. The strengths of the content added is that it does not impact the overall balance or neutrality of the article. It is also organized into a logical, easy to read structure. The content that was added could be improved by fixing some of the grammar mistakes. Additionally, the reference section could be updated so that all of the links work and so the citations were more diverse.