User:Yfz5256/Xiaomi/JSchrum1 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? Yfz5256
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Xiaomi

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 is thorough and includes most important information. One thing that could possibly warrant a mention in the lead is the privacy controversy in the article. Overall, everything else seems accounted for without going into too much detail.

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 all seems relevant, but it could use more for 2020. The last thing in the timeline is from early 2019.

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 seems to represent their controversies fairly well, but I noticed it doesn't mention many notable achievements they have had(or if it does it just lists them in the timeline without explaining how they are notable). If Xiaomi has pioneered any technology it may be worth adding this somewhere. Also, as a Chinese electronics company, it may be worth elaborating on their privacy and foreign-relations stance. Privacy concerns are touched on but they could be discussed further., even if the consensus is that there are no major privacy concerns.

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
There are a lot of sources from varying viewpoints and they all seem to work. Overall the references are thorough for this article. There are a few statements in the timeline without sources, but most do. These could have sources added to them, even if they are just using the source before or after, to make it more clear where to find this 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
The article is well organized and the timeline is very easy to follow. The content is also well-written and easy to follow. There are no noticeable grammar or spelling errors.

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
There a few images which seem helpful. The captions are concise but contain all the detail needed. One photo was taken by a suer and the other is on Flickr, so they are both allowed as long as the Flickr image was uploaded by the user or they have permission, which I couldn't check since I got a 404 when I tried to look at it on Flickr.

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
Overall, this seems like a pretty good article that could use some updates for the last year or so of progress. Some more information on controversies and achievements could also be added if there is anything else to say. The lead may also benefit from a mention of their controversies.