User:Rfr5240/Virtual reality therapy/Shengchieh Lee 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? (provide username) I'm reviewing the Rfr5240's sandbox.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rfr5240/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, he does not.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, he does not.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, he does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, he does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There are no new conetnes added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I cannot tell it is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I cannot tell because it is orginal text.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I cannot tell.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No new contents, they are all original text, and I think they are netural.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nope.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Nope.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new contents so I cannot tell.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources.
 * Are the sources current? No sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No new contents.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No new contents.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No new contents.

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


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

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? It does not meet the requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are no list of sources.
 * 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? Nope, only few sentences.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No link at all.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The editor only added some original text from article, so I think the overall quality stay the same.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No content added.
 * How can the content added be improved? I cannot tell with no new contents.