User talk:Mengqiaozhao

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Casting


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Casting, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Mengqiaozhao, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Mengqiao's Peer Review
1.	Looking at the lead (the opening paragraph) by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? If not, what information could be added to make a stronger lead? Yes

2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? What should be added or changed, in your opinion? It includes all the data and status of China’s higher education. I think it is good. 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No 4.	Is anything in the lead missing? I think the lead part is ok. 5.	Is anything in the lead redundant? No

Now, let's look at the article itself. Different aspects of the article should each have their own section. The difference between sections should be easy to understand, and each statement should have a clear reason for being where it is. Please answer the following questions about your peer’s Wikipedia article: 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I think the order make sense. Balance: Wikipedia articles are summaries of pre-existing resources. They should be balanced according to the available literature. No aspect should take over too much of the article, and more well-documented viewpoints should get more space. However, a good article also presents minority viewpoints and positions. 7.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? I think the effect part is short, and there is only one effect. Mengqiao should write more effect of the expansion of the higher education in China. 8.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Mengqiao can think about what other effect the expansion of higher education has? 9.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?Y Yes, she put the conclusion in the effect part. Neutrality: Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position. 10.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I think the author is neutral, although the expansion of higher education has more negative impact. 11.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y. I don’t find it. 12.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." I don’t find it.

13.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. think the author is neutral Reliable Sources: Good articles are built on good sources. When you've read the article, turn to the references section. 14.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes. 15.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No. 16. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! I think the data is accurate.

YutanEyepple (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)