User:Tif0409/Beef noodle soup/Alex.yuan011995 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? Tif0409
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tif0409/Beef noodle soup

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 has been updated and reflects to the added content. It contains a clear introduction sentence by explaining what exactly a beef noodle soup is and where it was originally from. The Lead focuses more on the history and background information about beef noodle soup, but doesn't contain the description of the article's major sections. In addition, the Lead is concise and doesn't include information that is not presented in the article.

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?

Content evaluation
The added content is relevant to the topic and also up-to-date. All information provided belongs to the article, but I think the editor could add a section specifically describing about the history of beef noodle soup instead of only putting a brief description in the Lead section.

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 added content is neutral, well-presented and the tone doesn't attempt to persuade the readers into thinking in any specific way. The viewpoints are well-presented and the claims are not biased towards any particular 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article is backed up with an adequate amount of sources but most of them are from online blog posts or news media instead of formal research paper or books which may not be totally reliable. However, all sources are current and reflect the available literature on the topic clearly. The editor also provides a bibliography and websites from foreign countries. In addition, all the links work.

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 is well-written and free of grammatical and spelling errors. Also, the content along with the pictures provided are well-organized and easy to read through.

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
The article contains plenty images which definitely enhance the understanding of the topic for the readers. Most of the images are well-captioned, but a small amount of them doesn't have enough descriptions which may cause some confusions for the readers while reading through the article. The images laid out in a pretty appealing way that makes the article seem to be more interesting and fun to read. Regarding the copyright regulation, the editor provides images from online blog posts, individual works, social media content, etc. that doesn't seem to cause any copyright violation.

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
The article is not 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 added content is in good quality and improves the article in a lot of ways. The information of the topic is significantly increased and the adequate amount of images along with the article makes it pretty appealing and interesting to read through. The strengths of the added content are detailed background information and attractive images associated with the article. For the area of improvement, I suggest the editor to create a specific section for the history of beef noodle soup since there's a fair amount of information related to that contained in the Lead section. It would be more straightforward to pull those information out and have a designated section for them.