User:Yuweij/Kunming Lake/BarrrrbY 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?

Yuweij

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yuweij/Kunming Lake
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Kunming Lake

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The Lead stays original.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes, it introdueces the location, landscape near by, and the size, which gives readers a brief introduction of Kunming Lake.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The Lead covers most of the sections, except the tourist attraction section.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - No, the Lead is just right for readers to get a brief information of Kunming Lake.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the added content of water source and tourist attractions are relevant to the topic.
Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the content added are current information of Kunming Lake.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - All the content relates to the topic. But I think it would be better to add information about the number of tourists that travel to Kunming Lake each year in tourist attraction section.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - The topic does not relate to underrepresented topics, so I think it should be fine.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? - Yes, most of the content is neutral. But it would be better to delete the word "obvious" in "However, the water source was obviously insufficient in 1949", because "obvious" sounds a little subjective.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, the claims are fair.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - The references about tourist attraction are from published book, which is reliable. However, the content in "water source" section have no reference yet, which should be added before publishing.
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Yes, it is accurate.
Are the sources current? - Yes, the sources are published after 2000.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - There are two authors so far that talks about tourist attraction of Kunming Lake. I think it would be better to add more reference that address to this topic.
Check a few links. Do they work? - Since the references are books, I did not find a way to check the ebook through the link.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the language is fluent.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - The first sentences of Nanhu Island/Zhijing Pavilion Island/Zaojian Hall Island are not complete. It should be written as "XXX located on the east side of Kunming Lake".
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the content is organized logically.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, by introducing water source and tourist attraction, readers would have a better understanding about Kunming Lake.
What are the strengths of the content added? - It introduces the value of Kunming Lake as a tourist landscape.
How can the content added be improved? - If there are any shows or literature ever mentioned Kunming Lake, it would be great to add those information. Also, there should be reference for water source section.