User:Lunarmoon13/Buddhism and Eastern religions/ChauTrang Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Lunarmoon 13

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Lunarmoon13/Buddhism and Eastern religions

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Buddhism and Eastern religions

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
• 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? yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes, it's concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? yes Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes

This is a well-written and informative article about the Buddhism and Eastern religions. The article is well-organized and easy to read, and it covers all of the important aspects of the the relationship between Taoism and Buddhism.

• The article could be improved by updating more information about the modern relationship between Taoism and Buddhism, maybe in a specific community like their relationship in modern time in China.
• The article should also be improved by making some changes like bolding or italicizing the changed or added part so it would be easier to know where the changes were made.

Overall, this is a good draft that could be improved with some minor edits.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
• Are the sources current? yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?yes Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
• 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.) no
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes

I think overall this draft has very good sources and references. In my opinion, there is no changes that needs to be made here.

Praise: The draft uses excellent sources which are of high quality, credible, and reliable. The sources are cited correctly and consistently, and they are used to support all of the claims made in the article.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no, no images added
• Are images well-captioned? no, no images added
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no, no images added
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no, no images added

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? yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes
• 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
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved? no need to.

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.