User:Linyaf/Orange chicken/Claymeg18 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)
 * Kingleothethird
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Linyaf/Orange chicken

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it describes Orange Chicken broadly.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a Contents section, but does not have a brief description of the major sections included in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead includes popularity as well as nutrition facts that aren't present in the original article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise, including only a couple of sentences for both of the sections they added into their article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic. I personally believe that the sections added add to the information that someone searching orange chicken would be interested in.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I'm not sure if the content in the popularity section is up to date as it is not referenced with the sources below. Within the nutrition facts section, the article sourced is from 2016, so I do not believe that the information is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't believe that there is information that does not belong, however it could be beneficial to add information about recipes that orange chicken is used in.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, I don't believe it does. The history behind orange chicken seems very general and applicable to the subject.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is fairly neutral, however the popularity section mainly focuses on just Panda Express and I believe it could be expressed in more ways than just this restaurant.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I don't think so!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Like I mentioned, in the popularity section, Panda Express is overrepresented and other forms of popularity are underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I don't think so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some of the information (not specifically referenced in the text, is references to a Panda Express website, which could seem biased. I think going deeper into research could be beneficial to seek other sources besides just this to justify the research available to the reader.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Again, the Panda Express reference only includes the recipe of the entree that's available at the restaurant. Including additional information aside from just this restaurant could be beneficial for the reader.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All of the sources added by this user are from 2016, so adding more recent sources could be beneficial.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, majority of the sources added by this user are from Panda Express.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all of the links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, this content is very easy to read. I appreciate that the information is not biased and that it's very clear. However, after looking at the sources, doing more research could be helpful.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the sections added by the user definitely reflect additional major points of the topic. I do feel that there could be more sections added, but the only there currently are good!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the images presented are a good representation of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * I think the captions could improve a little bit as they coordinate and say almost the same thing. Changing these could be beneficial for them to seem not as repetitive to the user.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Having the 2nd image appear larger could be more appealing as it doesn't seem very aesthetic or symmetrical to the current user. It's not a huge issue, but making it larger would improve the page!

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?
 * No, the article is not supported by any sources independent of the subject. This could be helpful moving forward, trying to find sources that mention orange chicken and aren't mainly about the entree.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * No, this article does not accurately represent all available literature on the subject. I think there are more sources that talk about the entree aside from articles that are mainly about orange chicken and it's origin, etc.
 * 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?
 * Yes! The format of the article matches other articles very well. The headings look great, and the information is evenly distributed. The only part that I would recommend is that under Nutrition Facts, the line spacing is different than all of the other sections.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I believe the article is more complete after the new content that has been added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The new strengths of the content added are that it has added diversity in the information presented.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved by making it more diverse and not as focused on Panda Express. There are many more ways to present information on Orange Chicken that isn't solely focused on this restaurant.