User talk:Racheltlee/Belt and Road Initiative

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Racheltlee Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Racheltlee/Belt and Road Initiative Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. The additions by Rachel are case studies in a much broader topic. It does not need to be in the Lead section. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes definitely Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat, it's a massive article. Rachel's focus is on a couple case studies. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes correct, the additions by Rachel focus on case studies, not the entirety. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, very long article. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, Africa is a major region of funding for Belt and Road. Is the content added up-to-date? There's no date in the article for Uganda, Egypt could use updating. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there needs to be more context in the case of Egypt and Uganda. The cases of Nigeria and Djibouti are very strong especially detailed. Djibouti more so then Nigeria. Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? For the most part. Some concern with Djibouti section. Not other section mentions military aspects, so odd that the author decided to include it here. Appears author singled out this country. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Africa section mentions Anti-China problems, Djibouti appears slightly more anti-China. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it's mainly an overview of projects undertaken then criticisms or supports. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not sure it brings up any points that someone reading this article would not know or expect. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes they are very extensive sourcing. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Some of the sources appear more news then research journals. Are the sources current? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Most, I checked one that did not open. My WiFi isn't great so might just be me. 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? No spelling that I can tell. Grammar is odd at times, noticed in the Africa sections. Noticed a run on sentence. Rest of article appears well written. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Africa section is definitely strong, if it is intended as a lead to the case studies, then it needs some revision to preview the case studies. 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? No images 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? It is a massive article, so I skimmed it. From what I read, and know about Belt and Road this did expand my understanding of it. What are the strengths of the content added? Provides more evidence of Chinese funding, and more coverage of projects. Coverage of Chinese criticism while important needs to be evenly applied. How can the content added be improved? Content is strong, but could be expanded. Uganda and Egypt sections are quite short. If Egypt is not notable that is fine. Nigeria piece is strong and builds onto the existing Nigeria article. Overall evaluation

Jordanminer (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)JordanJordanminer (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)