User:DOGEVOL2/Anarchism in China/Wquon 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? (provide username)
  • DOGEVOL
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:DOGEVOL/Anarchism in China

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Assuming the Lead is "A contemporary view of anarchism in early China", it doesn't include all the points added in.
• 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?
  • No, not all of them.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes, I think so. The universalism idea and where it stems from.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Raises quick points on the topic, not overly detailed, but missing some information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Seems up to date, and sources are relatively new.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I'm not sure about the Daoist section and why its there, I put more questions about it later on.
• 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?
  • Some parts are not neutral.
    • "We will use historical determinism to discuss the historical development of anarchism and draw lessons from early anarchism." As an information source, there shouldn't be usage of "we" nor discussion. The editors are simply providing information, not making claims or debating about positions.
    • "Why and how do they do this?" - Similar to my first point. The page shouldn't be discussing facts, but simply presenting it.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Doesn't seem like it.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, don't think so?
• 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?
  • Sources seem okay.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • yes, looks like it
• Are the sources current?
  • Updated in 2006 and 2012
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • One of the sources has multiple authors, the others have 1 author.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Some parts are hard to understand
    • "The question of universality has long been at the heart of radical political movements outside Europe and North America, inspired by radical philosophies that must be engaged as an alien." - Is this trying to say new political movements are inspired by philosophies that are considered completely new and unheard of (alien, in your terms)?
    • "A Daoist critique of state autonomy" section. How does Daoism relate to all this? Was it a famous Daoist person who said this, and why?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Some capitalization errors and some long and lengthy sentences that can probably be broken up.
    • "MAO" Zedong -> Mao Zedong
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Good use of breaking up the sections.

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?

N/A - No images added.

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?
• 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?
  • More informative, can see
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • added sections and paragraphs not in the original article.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The content is informative, but needs to be broken up a bit so its easier to read, in terms of sentences. The content breakdown is good, but some of the sentences are long and the paragraphs could be organized a bit differently.

Overall evaluation

Nice work so far! Very informative, but just make sure to proofread a bit and the content will be much smoother. Hopefully the comments above can help you for the next version!