User:Ht231/Internet Celebrities/Shuyanz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ht231


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ht231/Internet_Celebrities?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Internet celebrity

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - I saw you've added some definitions related to influencers. However, there are some overlaps between this part and the original article. Therefore, I think we should give some different opinions from the original article. The new additions are a bit similar.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - It doesn't express the exact meaning very clearly. I suggest that it should be possible to write a clearer definition of Internet celebrity.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Yes, the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - The parts of content, net idol, internet platform are also presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Yes, This added is concise.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -The added parts are related to the content of the article. Is a supplement to the Internet red part.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? -The added content is very close to the latest knowledge. The added part is the latest content about the Internet celebrity. But some of it is very similiar in the network like some web or app.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No, there isn't content that is missing or content that does not belong
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Some of the added content is missing content, an addition to the article and more links. However, there is no detailed explanation of how women's rights could be transformed differently.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Most of the content is not neutral enough. Some of the more feminine introductions. The rest is neutral content. Or you can add some additions. This will balance both sides.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No, there don't have viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented
 * Does the content add to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, the content do not add to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another

Sources and References


 * Is all-new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - The resources and citations are very informative.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? I think part of it is accurate. However, there are still some ambiguous words in the text. For example, some studies have shown that. I think we can give a little bit more clarity. It would be better.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes
 * Are the sources current? - Their content is correct. They give a different understanding of women in different generations. However, they should add something more recent. It might be better.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Most of the sources are written by book writers .and i think they do not have historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - Most of the sources are published articles or books . and i think they have it. Check a few links. Do they work? - There is no link to resources.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written? - I think the addendum is well written. Because, he added part of the missing part of the text. And its content gives more ideas. And he gives relevant examples.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -There are a few grammatical problems. For example, there is a tense problem in the text.


 * Is the content added well-organized?-  They add different parts. And it gives us a few more possibilities.

Images and Media

There isn't have any image or media added to this article. If adding images or media could help your article more better.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - The content added to the article will help improve the overall quality of the article. Because, the added content gives a more detailed definition of the Internet celebrity. And, it gives a lot more recent stuff. In addition, he also gave more ideas and connections. There is a contrast, which can make readers more clearly understand.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?-There are more examples of additions. As well as the added content is to help readers to have more angles of understanding. And, the addition gives an example of comparison. Take the case of the late Qing Dynasty. Allows the reader to see more contrast.
 * How can the content added be improved? - I think part of it is accurate. However, there are still some ambiguous words in the text. For example, some studies have shown that. I think we can give a little bit more clarity. It would be better. I think something could be improved. Some more recent examples can be given. The time range of the examples in this article is very wide. So, the more recent data are closer.