User:SharonYubinKang/TikTok/Yuki119808 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)
 * SharonYubinKang
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:SharonYubinKang/TikTok

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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, there is an introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, there isn't.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes It is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there isn't.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No it seems like neutural to me.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It think it looks normal to me.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * They are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They are thorough, really detailed work.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links are working fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is clear and really understandble.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?b v
 * I do not see one while I was reading.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Could be improved. Try to organize it a little more.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are screen shots of the app.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Seems like to be legit.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * This section could be improved if you move your pictures to the right instead of on the left.

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?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I see infoboxes, section readings and also pictures.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No, this could be improved, if you add more content.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * As a introdution to the app, if I have not use it before, I would know the app quickly and efficiently.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * They are easily to understand and the information are thorough.
 * How can the content added be improved? I stated them in the sections above.