User:RunzeY/Zhang Zhidong/Mobinwang 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? RunzeY
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Zhang Zhidong

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
Unfortunately, the author did not write a lead for the new added content. As far as the original introduction of the article is concerned, it only refers to Zhang Zhidong's occupation but it does not cover the content of the first addition about the creation of a modern Chinese military.

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
The added content mainly describes the reason and general process of Zhang Zhidong's establishment of a modern Chinese military team, which is a topic.

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 relatively neutral, and there are no guiding words. It did not exaggerate the strength of the Western military and did not avoid the shortcomings of China's military power at the time.

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
Unfortunately, I cannot judge whether this paragraph has the authenticity of existence, since this added content does not indicate any source of 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
Excluding the inability to know whether this paragraph has a reliable source of information, the content is well written, and there are no grammatical errors, which emphasizes the important point. . Instead of arranging Zhang Zhidong's military actions based on the timeline, he chose to use concise language to highlight the reasons and basic ideas of Zhang Zhidong's choice to imitate Western military training.

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?

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
I think the new added content is still very useful, however, whether you have used the resources in the original article or you have found new resources for your argument, you need to source the information and mark it in the corresponding place. Secondly, I think maybe the lead can also be modified.