User:Yc19990311/Hu Shih/Suv702 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) Yc19990311
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yc19990311/Hu Shih

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? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? In my opinion, it is a bit overly detailed, could possible try to make it into one or two sentences.

Lead evaluation
Generally speaking, it is a good lead that added new contents, however, there are multiple grammar and spelling errors that need to be fixed.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
The added contents are generally well structured and easy for others to read, however, don't forget about the biography and other important parts.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The added contents are objective and neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are well-found and backing up the new contents added properly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Except from the grammar and spelling errors, the new contents are generally concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are actually many of them, might want to spend time fixing the errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
For the new '''contents added, they are well-organized, however, don't leave out the biography and other importants parts of Hu's life. Also, the grammar errors are making it hard to read and need to be fixed.'''

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The image is well-captioned and fits the article well.

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The new contents give connections between Hu and other famous people, it is a good perspective.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content's grammar errors need to be fixed and other important parts like his biography needs to be added.

Overall evaluation
'''Generally speaking, the added contents are good despite the grammar errors. The structure and organization are also well-designed for the added contents.'''