User:Phoenix 1620/History of opium in China/Emmazjia 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? Phoenix 1620
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Phoenix 1620/History of opium in China

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
No information has been added to the Lead so far. However, I feel that the Lead in the original article already has enough information and provides descriptions of the categories that will be covered throughout the article. Some minor editing and adding some citations will be enough for the Lead, in my opinion.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All the content presented is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. I feel that all the information belongs and is interesting. It also discusses everyone from urban elites, to lower and working class, addressing equity gaps and discussing those who are more underrepresented. Overall, I think the content is well written, especially for an early draft.

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 content is neutral and does not show a bias towards any position. While reading it, I didn't feel like I was being persuaded to believe in a certain position over another. All of it is objective and informative.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. While there is one source listed at the bottom, there's a lack of in-text citations, which makes it difficult for readers to know what you're referencing and where they can access the information by themselves. The source seems to be reliable, but is written in 2003, which is not super current, but is alright. The link to the source is also easily accessible. It would be good to have some sources that are written in the more recent years though. Overall, I would say to find more sources and include in-text citations to back up your information.

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 information is concise and easy to read. However, there's a lack of headings and subheadings which makes it seem disorganized and makes it more difficult for readers to find what they're looking for. There are some very minor grammar errors, or things that could be changed to make it flow better and I'll include them here with some suggestions:

"...opium smoking had the most popularity during..." to "...opium smoking was most popular during..."

"Also during this time one of..." to "Also during this time, one of..."

All of these mistakes are easily fixable, though, and don't take too much away from reading. Just be sure to proofread while writing. My last question is about the line "It also filtered down form the urban elites and middle class to the lower, working class citizens" since it doesn't really make sense to me. However, this could just be a personal issue.

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
No images have been added yet.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article's content is very well written! My suggestions for you would be to focus on the organization of the article and make sure you have more reliable sources to back up all your information. Make sure to include in-text citations as you go along or it'll be difficult and time consuming for you to go back and put all of them back in. Organization especially will help improve your article a lot and help both you and the people reading the article. Good job!