User:Yuxiang Dou/COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China/Jiaoyan Zhou Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yuxiang Dou


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * lead section

I think the guide language organization is neutral, you can see that spent a lot of effort, but this guide language is too detailed, guide language is to let the reader quickly browse the content, too detailed some of the cart before the horse! In addition, most of the introduction is like the main text, explaining the course of the epidemic and the government's solutions. My suggestion is to include these in the content, for example, adding the sub-title "Epidemic process" in the content. Thus, on the basis of shortening the lead, the content is enriched. In addition, as far as I know, the epidemic in China is not over yet, but the information only mentions July 2020. I think it would be better to write it at least to January 21.


 * content
 * There's no subheading for the first part, just "context", which I think is not a good place to put a subheading. But I think there is something wrong with the content of this paragraph, which is very confusing. I just read the first paragraph, which I thought was about the origin of COVID-19. From the second paragraph, it began to describe people's attitudes towards officials' handling of COVID-19, etc. At the end, it also introduced the transmission routes and people of COVID-19. This paragraph is more of an introduction than the first chapter of the body.
 * Besides, since the title of this article is Mainland China, why does it have a special sub-title for Taiwan? By definition, Taiwan is not included in Mainland China.
 * The content is updated to April 11 this year, you can see that the content is sometimes updated, very good!


 * Overall performance
 * The tone is very formal and the content is very neutral
 * The images shown in the content are very helpful to read
 * The references are basically newspapers or online magazines, which are more convincing.
 * Great content! It's very detailed, but I think the organization of the different parts would be very difficult to read, and I think it would be much better to adjust some of the chapters without changing the content