User talk:FangzhuLu

Peer Review Added
Hi Fangzhu,

I just added a peer review to your sandbox for article two, and as per the instructions, I am pasting it on your User talk page here as well.

It was a pleasure reading over your draft, and I want to offer some comments that will hopefully be helpful for you as you go forward. I think you've made substantial improvements to the original article -- the additions of the new sections are quite useful and informative. The original article has too much information scrambled under a single category, which makes it hard to read and disorganized. I think you are doing a pretty good job separating things and organizing them, with fruitful material as well.

In terms of content, I think the information you added is all relevant. I would just like to point out some of my confusions that arose when reading your draft. I think the first section entitled "Reasons" does not really talk about the reasons behind the emergence of Internet Water Army. In fact, this section seems more to me an introduction to what IWA is and how its current state looks like. It might in fact work as a lead section. However, a section named "Reasons" would need to be more explicit about the actual causes and people's motivations. Additionally, in the "Features" section, I think you focus a bit too much on "50 cent party," while overlooking IWA, which is the subject of this piece. I understand that you are trying to posit a contrast here, but you probably would want to center it around the main topic.

In terms of tone, I think you are mostly just reporting factual information and thus the tone is fairly neutral. In fact, I think you did a phenomenal job being so neutral -- I often need to modify my language to appear more neutral, so good job here! I have nothing to pick up on.

In terms of sources, I think you did a good job citing from reliable sources such as news articles and papers in academic journals. And the links are all working, which is good too. I would encourage more academic sources because they are usually more factual and neutral, whereas news articles tend to still contain a certain degree of bias, especially those published by Western press on issues related to China. Moreover, I would encourage you to definitely add more sources to your article. As it stands now, you have 1-2 citations per paragraph, which is a little too few, I think, as per Wikipedia standards. But nice research so far!

Overall, it is a really nice draft, and I look forward to seeing how it turns out.

Lilyzzf (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Lily Zhou (User ID: Lilyzzf)