User:Kyriefmz/Shi Zhecun/Suv702 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) Kyriefmz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kyriefmz/Shi Zhecun

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't think there is a lead section added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I don't think there is a lead section added.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I don't think there is a lead section added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I don't think there is a lead section added.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I don't think there is a lead section added.

Lead evaluation
The paragraph added does not seem to be a lead, therefore nothing to be evaluated here.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
The added paragraph is related to the topic but there is not too much content to evaluate.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The added contents are objective and neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, I don't see secondary sources backing up the new content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, I don't see secondary sources backing up the new content.
 * Are the sources current? No, I don't see secondary sources backing up the new content.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, I don't see secondary sources backing up the new content.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No, I don't see secondary sources backing up the new content.

Sources and references evaluation
I don't see secondary sources backing up the new content.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, no errors that I could find.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No sections, only one paragraph.

Organization evaluation
The added contents are not broken down into sections so I could not evaluate the organization.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No pictures included.
 * Are images well-captioned? No pictures included.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?No pictures included.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No pictures included.

Images and media evaluation
No pictures included.

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? I believe so, but the added content is too few to evaluate as a whole thing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Generally speaking it is good, I expect more after the author finish reading his sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? More contents could be added and more sections to be broken down into.

Overall evaluation
'''Generally speaking it is good, I expect more after the author finish reading his sources. More contents could be added and more sections to be broken down into.'''