User:NK560/Asian Americans in California/Alex.yuan011995 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? NK560
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:NK560/Asian Americans in California

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 starts with a clear descriptive sentence that summarizes the meaning of the topic and it reflects the content which the editor uploaded on the page. The Lead doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sections, but it also doesn't contain other information that is not presented in the article. The Lead is pretty concise and the information provided seems adequate.

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
The content added is relevant to the topic and also up-to-date. The content covers most of the information related to the topic and there's no missing content or content which doesn't belong to the article.

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
The added content sounds neutral and there's no claim appearing to be biased towards any certain position. The viewpoints are well-presented and the editor doesn't seem to persuade the readers into thinking in any specific way.

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
Some of the sources are from online news which may not be reliable enough, and some of the links are not working. The editor does provide some reliable secondary sources but not all of them are qualified. Also, there's no bibliography page for this article.

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
The content is well-written and free of grammatical or spelling errors. However, there's a significant amount of the article containing lists of examples. Instead of using a template, the editor lists them directly on the page which make it a bit hard to browse as a reader. That's the only organization-related issue I've observed.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The editor doesn't attach any image along with the article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article is not a new article.

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?

Overall evaluation
The editor adds a lot of detailed information to the article that makes it to be more complete. The strengths of the added content are reliability and adequateness that do improve the article as a whole. For the area of improvement, I suggest the editor to reorganize the lists in order to make it easier for the readers to browse through the content. In addition, the editor could add a bibliography page for this article.