User talk:Jillychoi/sandbox

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Jillychoi Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jillychoi/sandbox Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Slightly? Author notes they are adding/expanding the section more. The section as it currently stands in their sandbox reads more like a reproduction of the current published lead section. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes definitely, has potential to be touch longer. It is sufficient as it is. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really, its to much of an overview. Extensive sections of the article are on the Darfur Crisis, oil exploration, and history. The lead is an extremely superficial overview/preview. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. The details in lead can also be found in subsections. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, but too concise. It's short, but it is lacking. Currently the history information and economic development are restated later in the article. The lead could be improved provided it features information that is not laid out in the subsections. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes for sure, it's a rather obscure topic. So any added information is very relevant to the expansion of the article. Is the content added up-to-date? It's pretty up-to-date. The Darfur crisis and the links are all mainly around 2010. The newest article is from 2016, which by now is 4 years old. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The sections that have been updated are very good, rest of the pieces needs more expanding, but it is reassuring that the other sections will be good. Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? It's very safe. It reads quite neutral, but concerned it is too soft on China then. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Concern for no bias is rather from lack of coverage rather then written biases. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It could be more fair is some of the harsher criticisms of China were covered. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not. China and Sudan relations are more or less fine, some coverage of geopolitical criticisms/concerns. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the content is backed up with sufficient sources. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are a strong start. Are the sources current? Newest is 2016. Rest are older such as mid 2000's. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they worked perfectly. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not, that I noticed. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat, the content that is there is organized well. In the boarder article organization is touch odd. In the draft organization is good. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A Are images well-captioned? N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A Images and media evaluation 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 Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the original article needed some expanding. This was most notable in the Darfur crisis. What are the strengths of the content added? The History and Darfur crisis are strong addition. How can the content added be improved? History section is strong. I think it could be shorten though, the remaining information could probably be expanded into other sub sections. Overall evaluation

Jordanminer (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Jordan