User:Mobinwang/Feminism in China/ZimuW Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Mobin wang
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mobinwang/Feminism in China

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, this is my first peer.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the introduction part does not contain any citations.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it's well done. It contains useful information, but not too long.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? The newsiest date of source is from 2015, I think it is.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No there isn't
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not deal with the equity gaps and did not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there aren't.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No there aren't.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it doesn't.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? A part of it does. The summarize doesn't.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they are about the topic.
• Are the sources current? It's near current date(2014,2015).
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are written by diverse authors. I think they didn't.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, link number 10 and 11 works.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it well explained the new vocabulary "leftover woman".
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There seems no grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it's all close to the topic to this paragraph.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, it does not.
• 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

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, it does include 2 reliable secondary sources in one paragraph.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It's very clear with both articles title and author. Yes it does.
• 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 it does.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No it doesn't.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? It's strong, the added information have a causation relationship with the topic.
• How can the content added be improved? Collect more numbers into the edited paragraph could make the statement stronger.