User:Pingxia/Autistic art/Wenqing855 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? Pingxia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Pingxia/Autistic art

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No ,there is no lead.
 * 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
1-2 sentences of lead will be helpful.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, updated since Mar. 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no, all links work and much more new content.

Content evaluation
new section divided and add new content about meanings and values will highly improve the details and explanation of the topic.

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?
 * "There is a stereotype that people tend to be feel comfortable about the art works which is similar to their understandings of the world. Other people may not able to understand the meanings of the creations, but they also has artistic values and deserve respect as other forms of art. They do provide interesting aesthetic experiences for us and present inner world of autistic persons" this sentence is kind of overrepresented.
 * "There are many different people that consider themselves to be autistic artists. " this one as well and need clarification.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance are mostly nice.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation
the sources and references are mostly Independent sources and reliable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * 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

Organization evaluation
The article is well-organized and easy to read.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
Images may be helpful but should think about copyrights.

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?
 * yes the article is more complete and detailed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * clear structure, balanced content and good sourcing
 * more background of the Autistic art and the clearer sections created.
 * more helpful to introduce the Autistic art and the works of Autistic art.
 * the meanings and values of Autistic art which will also make the article more notable.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * add lead will be helpful
 * add pic will be helpful
 * change some tone of the sentences will be better.

Overall evaluation
this article draft have a clear structure, balanced content and good sources. The section is well-used and content is concise and easy to read. More details in lead, images and (maybe) more independent sources will be better.