User:Siyuan Cheng/New Youth/Brittanyli 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? Siyuan Cheng
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Siyuan Cheng/New Youth, New Youth

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
The lead does not appear to be edited to reflect the new content, but the existing lead is strongly written. It includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic as well as a brief description of the article's major sections. It does not appear to contain any information that is not present in the article and is concise.

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 content that was added is relevant to the topic of the article and up to date. It did not seem like there was any content that did not belong, but it was difficult to tell as there was no heading attached to the content, so I was unsure of where the draft was to be placed in the article. The topic is related to historically underrepresented topics and although the article had sufficient content, it definitely seemed like there could be more added.

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 mostly neutral, but I thought that the sentence "This led to China's backwardness in all aspects." to be more opinionated than the rest of the article. It seems to show a bias throughout the rest of the draft towards that particular position and does not mention any other viewpoints. Though it is a small part of the content added, it is persuading the reader in favor of that position.

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
Not all of the new content is backed up by a reliable source. There are many parts of the content that do not have a citation attached to them. Though two sources are cited, they are the same source. The source that is cited is current and seems to include historically marginalized individuals. The link does work and brought me to the source.

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
The content that my peer has written is clear and concise, but I noticed a few grammatical errors. There were a couple of instances where the tense switched from past to present,

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?

Images and media evaluation
My peer did not add any images or media.

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?

New Article Evaluation
My peer did not create a new article.

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
The content that was added does add to the article and creates a more complete article, but it could add even more with additional sources. It would also be helpful to add to the draft a header, or a mention of which header this information is going under. The information presented so far is concise and clear, but I personally thought that it was written more like a research paper than a Wikipedia article (eg. according to ____ book, adding page numbers from the sources, etc). There were also a few places where the content added did not make sense grammatically (eg. tenses). However I think that it will be a great addition to the article!