User:Pudding34/Leap (film)/Isabelwei77 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Pudding34


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pudding34/Leap_(film)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Leap (film)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section:

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.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

From my perspective, it could be a little more detailed.

Content:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, it is.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, it is.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I think the content needs to be enriched a bit more, but there is nothing that doesn't belong.

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

No, the main character of the article is relatively representative in history, and is not a marginal character.

Tone and Balance:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, they are all objective.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

Yes.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes.

Are the sources current?

Yes.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, but Douban is a site where everyone can comment, and I think it may not be very academic.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, it may be better to have a more scholarly book or journal than the Douban website.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, they work.

Organization:

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

Yes, they are clear and easy to read, but I think they may not be well developed and could use a few more sources.

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, they are clear.

Images and Media:

No images or media are added.

New Articles:

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements?

Yes.

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

Yes.

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles?

Yes, they have.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes.

Overall impressions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article?

Kind of.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The lead don't get too bogged down in detail, and don't simply repeat what's in the article below. The content is much better, they are clear and easy to read, as well as the content is objective and the tone neutral.

How can the content added be improved?

Need to add more pictures or videos to make the content more interesting and easy to understand.