User:Jillychoi/China–Sudan relations/Jagcataldo 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) Jillychoi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jillychoi/China–Sudan relations

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 is good. It is similar to the old Wikipedia page. Although major additions have been made to subsequent content sections, it does not include descriptions of these major sections. The lead is not overly detailed. In fact, it makes some broad statements without citation, such as “Both states enjoy a very robust and productive relationship in the fields of diplomacy, economic trade, and political strategy.” However, subsequent sections are well documented with diverse sources.

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
A lot of content has been added to the different sections. It is relevant and current. It is presented in a logical, chronological manner and is easy to follow.

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
Overall, the tone of the article is even. The balance is good, although at times, it seems to have a slight bias towards the Chinese. For example, “In fact, during this time, China began providing aid to Sudan in the form of free-interest loans with no-strings attached, though, this can be viewed more as a symbolic act rather than a political one." The sentence and the rest of the paragraph emphasizes the altruistic actions of the Chinese in providing aid to Sudan. The benefits that China derives from the relationship is mentioned, but what stood out to me are the good things that China provided for Sudan.

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
The sources and references are current and reputable. All links are intact.

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
Overall, this article is well written. It is logically organized, and easy to follow. Information included is not extraneous or off tangent. It is important and furthers the reader’s understanding of the topic.

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?

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?