User:Ashleyglim/Hello Kitty murder/Isobelpowell Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Ashleyglim

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Ashleyglim/Hello Kitty murder
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Hello Kitty murder

Evaluate the drafted changes

I like how you created the section of 'Childhood and Teenage Years' to incorporate more of the backstory for Fan Man-Yee. I think it's important that we know about the victim and I'm glad you included this information. I would suggest maybe changing this heading to something simpler, like 'About Fan Man-yee', or just 'Background', instead of the specific wording you have now. Also, I notice that they aren't formatted with the 'Heading' (i.e. they're not underlined sections) so watch out to change that!

You did a great job at including more pieces of the kidnapping and information about the men that committed this crime. The information you sourced definitely adds to the relevance of the situation and I'm surprised it wasn't in the original article, so great job at finding that.

I don’t know if I would continue to split up the Torture/Murder sections, but that might just be my own personal preference! To me, it seems okay to keep all the info under 'Murder', as the torture lead to her death.

I would be careful with the phrasing of the last sentence in the 'Torture' section where you write "All over a debt dispute of HK$20,000". I agree that it is so devastating to think that all this happened over that amount of money, but the phrasing of "all over ___" doesn't give off a neutral tone like Wikipedia articles want.

I notice that the 'Aftermath' section of the original article asks for more additional citations for verification. Maybe if you want to enhance this part ore you could look to see where there is more coverage on the films produced about this case?

Overall, great job! You added some great information that I think is crucial to this article. It's really sad to read about, but you are doing something important by shedding light on this case and giving the correct information and sources as needed. Well done :)