User:Dugushengwu/Tang Jia San Shao/Btaylor 16 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)
 * Dugushengwu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Dugushengwu/Tang Jia San Shao

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * the lead is generalized to the article as a whole- not specifically the new information from my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead provides good information to help the reader know what exactly we will be reading about in a clear and concise way.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. The lead does include the articles major sections in a "contents" box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * In the contents box in the lead it includes a heading for his personal life which is not yet included in the article but I assume my peer will add before the final draft of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and provides a good amount of information.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead is very well written and prefaces the article in a nice way while also containing important information for the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content included in the article is relevant to the topic and all relates well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date and accurate to the times.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think all the content included in the article is relevant and nothing seems that it does not belong. There is content about his personal life missing but it will be added in.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I think the topic of Chinese online novelist is extremely niche and something there is probably not a lot of Wikipedia articles about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content included and the way it is presented is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, while reading this article it did not appear to be biased in any direction.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints appeared to be represented equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content in this article did not attempt to persuade the reader at all in any direction.

Tone and balance evaluation
The author of the article does a very good job having an objective, non bias tone and remaining professional.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the author did a good job citing the sources where it was necessary.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources all seem to reflect the available literature of the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, a majority of the sources used are from within the past five years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are all written by different authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links brought me to the source when I clicked on them.

Sources and references evaluation
One thing I want to add is that there is one source cited twice.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content written by my peer is concise, clear, and easy to read. It is very professional sounding and straight to the point which is good for a Wikipedia article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content added is well organized into the Wikipedia page and divided well into the different headings of the article.

Organization evaluation
Very well done and professional sounding.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are currently no pictures included in the sandbox draft of the article.

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, there are more than three reliable sources for this article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes, the list of sources is very good and all the sources are reliable.
 * 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. There is a very clear organization to the article that includes headings and tables.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes. There are many other articles linked in key words to this article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added by my peer is very important to the general information of this Wikipedia article and is very clearly stated.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are that the way the article is written is easy to read and sounds exactly like how a. Wikipedia article should sound while also including all the necessary information for the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This main thing necessary to improve this article would be to include images related to the article.