User:Breadrhix/Miss Sophia's Diary/Zhuolin Wu Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Breadrhix


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Breadrhix/Miss_Sophia%27s_Diary?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Miss Sophia's Diary

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

The lead reflects the new content updated by the writer. However, I think the first sentence of the entire draft can be rewritten to something that is a high-level summary of the entire diary. With that, instead of focusing on the content of Miss Sophia's Diary. The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major section, you should consider adding a brief description of the article's major section.

The lead is very conscious and detailed.

Content

The content is awesome! It up-to date and relevant. I don't see anything that doesn't belong or is not clear. It is truly inspiring. Looking at the image of female with the historical background is both helpful and educational. The article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations of female. One thing that I might question is the emphasis on Sophia being firm and does not change. However, I find Sophia to be swinging between the two man, difficult to make a decision. This might be something that you want to think about, whether it is a fact or not.

Tone and Balance

In the second paragraph, the draft discusses the writing skill of diary. I think some sentence may indicate critics of the writing skill, like "this masculinist writing style fails to create a female identity." This statement can be paraphrased to make it more content.

Sources and References

The sources and references used in this draft is very clear. They are from very reliable sources. I also think that the content accurately reflects what the resources say. The source is great, while I do think that there can be more references to increase the credibility of the draft. The resources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. One thing that I noticed is that the resources are mostly from older times. I do understand that since the writing was from the 1900s, more older resources are helpful.

Organization

I really like the organization of this draft, it is concise, clear and easy to read. The organization of each paragraph is very logical, like how the sections are broken down. As a reader, I find it easy to follow and comprehend. I don't see any grammatical and spelling errors, this adds to the credibility and the professionalism of the draft.