User:Nickyeah/Hui mian/MArtin9712 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Nickyeah
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
- User:Nickyeah/Hui mian
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Some minor changes has been done.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- It includes that.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Most of the content and link are.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- More information about different styles of Hui Mian could be added.
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No. It is neutral.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No. It is pretty equal.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- It Is not.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Most of the content are. But some sources looks not too formal.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Most sources are.
- Are the sources current?
- Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- There is no set of link.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes. It is concise.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I didn't find anything wrong when I read it.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, it is well organized.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes.
- Are images well-captioned?
- Those pictures are clear.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- It surely is more complete.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- It did make the article more complete. But I think more sections of information could be added.
- How can the content added be improved?
- More background information about it could be added. Also, more information under each sections could be added.