User talk:Yuzhan Yuzhan/sandbox

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

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The peer only gives descriptions of what he's going to write, not exactly an introduction paragraph. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really. Again, the peer only gives descriptions of what he's going to write, not exactly a main paragraph of description. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? No Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? NO Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, I've noticed that some of the sources are from a blog, which does not consider as a reliable source. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes. Most of the sources showed it is from 2019. Check a few links. Do they work? All of them work. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is no content, only descriptions of this peer about what he's going to write. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It seems like the peer has a clear mind of what he's going to write in the article. 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? No images Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images 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? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes 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? Yes Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes 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? The article is not complete yet. Although the peer does not have a specific content yet, the descriptions still look strong and clear. What are the strengths of the content added? The peer seems like he clearly knows how to break down each section and have a clear mind of what he's writing. How can the content added be improved? Maybe the peer should start writing some actual and specific content Overall evaluation

The peer's sandbox shows the audience what he's going to do clearly, I suggest the peer to keep up the good writing at the same time start writing some actual content instead of just the descriptions.