User:Kris1019/Tencent Video/Khascall Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kris1019


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kris1019/Tencent Video


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Tencent Video

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, what I see that you changed is:

- shifting some of the tense from "is" to "was" (is the organization now out of business? what happened to it?)

- expanding the lead

- adding references

- creating a history section with a combination of the previous text and some of the latest news

Lead:

You've expanded the lead, but unfortunately the new reference (Baidu Baike) is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. The new lead also unfortunately lost the encylopedic tone of the previous version. The first sentence should give a broad overview, and the following sentences should each summarize the sections in the article. It makes sense to describe the service as well as some basics about the company.

'''Content: '''The new content seems relevant and recent. Some topics I don't see in the article is more about the company's leadership, ownership, operation locations, or reviews of the products. There's a block at the bottom of the article describing all of the video properties, but there's not a mention of any of the notable media in particular. How was the news of the pricing change received? Are there controversies about this company? The article isn't oriented to equity gaps in particular.

Tone and Balance:

The new content has some balance issues in terms of maintaining an encylopedic tone; it's important not to praise the company or its products from your own perspective. What you'll want to do instead is talk about how the organization is portrayed in reliable sources.

Sources and References:

Some of the sources (like baidu) are considered unreliable by Wikipedia or may be more promotional than journalistic. One area of work for this article will be to find solid sources about the business -- New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, the Economist. These should be available through the UW Library, and librarians are super helpful. I also recommend taking a look at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=tencent+video&btnG= -- there have been some academic articles written about Tencent Video.

Organization:

The expanded sections make sense, and the writing is good, so definitely keep up the good work in this regard. I saw a few minor copyedits that need to be made.

Images and Media

It might be a bit difficult to identify good images. Some ideas might be headquarters for corporate offices, people using the product (like at trade shows), publicity stills from popular shows, etc. Take a look at Wikimedia Commons and see what you can come up with. Readers often really appreciate images.

Overall:

I think you're making progress, but there's some work left to do. I would particularly focus on finding good sources that can let you feed in solid new content in a fairly easy way.

Updated Review
Hi

I see you swapped out a source and added two more -- one of which is the organization itself. You might find this sources list helpful as you evaluate additions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

It looks like the other comments I made with respect to the lead, copyediting, and tone are yet to be addressed. Let me know when you'd like me to take another look -- the amount of improvement made so far is less than what we are expecting, so please consider finding more sources and tackling more topics.

Kaylea Champion (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)