User:Liziming99/Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties/Rag138 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? Liziming99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Peer has not updated at this point
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not at all, it links to the UNESCO and WHS which while is important does not tell me what the article is about before I lose interest.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? They do but it is very difficult to read, its just presenting facts without making it readable.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, both the lead and article as a whole are very underdeveloped.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed because of the way that the writing is done, none of it flows or ties together just simply states facts.

Lead evaluation
The lead is lacking in many aspects, while the entire article is underwhelming the lead is overly detailed causing it to be hard to read, I would recommend doing other updating and then coming back to the lead so you don't need to backtrack after making other edits.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes but it is extremely lacking, there is only one section other than the lead, and just a table with locations.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It seems to be, again there isnt much.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is definitely missing a section that goes in detail about the timelines, the tombs themselves, and the background, and the modern contexts of them as a whole.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not at all

Content evaluation
Overall there is tons of room for improvement on this articles content, I think if you were too add a background, and current context sections to the article you would greatly improve it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, but there is almost none!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is not content to make any position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No see above!
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, see above again!

Tone and balance evaluation
As long as nothing that you add has a bias and is well balances you shouldn't have any issues regarding the tone/balance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not really it seems to just link to other wiki pages I would try to find real articles that support some of them.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? See above.
 * Are the sources current? See above.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not really the article as a whole isnt well cited or sourced, it seems to only link to other wiki pages and a handful of outside sources  I would try to fix this, even if its simply pulling the sources that are on the linked wiki pages.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some of the links don't work and simply link back to the page itself I would absolutely find sources for those and fix them.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references are one of the worst parts of the article, many of the in article links just take you right back to this page which is useless. I would recommend finding sources for some of the information but more importantly either fix or eliminate the links that bring you to this page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No it is not, it is very difficult to read and is way too fact based presentation instead of readable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Fine there, but that doesn't mean much with what it does say.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is only 3 sections the lead, a table and a section that is kind of unrelated to the topic.

Organization evaluation
I really think that the article is not well organized at all, it is very difficult to read and is only a lead, a table, and then a section dedicated to other topics. I think that the organization would be greatly improved just by rewriting to make it readable and then making the other sections mentioned before.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not at all, I would definatey look into finding some media to help the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images available.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? See above.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? See above.

Images and media evaluation
Article needs media, without any its easy to lose interest and hard to convey information.

Overall Evaluation:

I think that this article is totally lacking in every way possible, while this is a harsh critique, this is great news for you! I think that if you focus on getting a background section and, current conditions/current events on the page you would greatly improve the article. Once that is done and some media like photos is added I think you could simply update the lead to reflect the new sections and it would be a million times better and make the page much more readable by changing the lead from the "fact presenting" it is to a readable summary of itself. As long as you do these things without a bias and also update the links of the page you will have completely changed the article and made it so much more usable. GOOD LUCK!!