User:Hedwig Li/Mu Shiying/Mobinwang 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? Hedwig Li
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hedwig Li/Mu Shiying

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead part is very concise, introducing Mu Shiying's occupation, activity time and location in one sentence. However, the lead did not include a general overview of the major section of the article. Such as his main writing technique or an overview of his main achievements.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is all related to the subject Mu Shiying, but only involves Mu Shiying's literary genre and some people's evaluation of him.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is relatively neutral, and none of the claims seem to be heavily biased towards a particular position. The content first expounds the Left-wing writers' views on Mu Shiying, and then in the impact part, it explains the evaluation of Mu Shiying's works by other critics who are not from the Left-wing. In my opinion, it is a wise approach to avoid the views of a certain faction from influencing readers' views.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The source mainly reflects the interpretation of Mu Shiying's literary works from the physical and tactile perspectives and their influence on later generations. As the source of academic data, it is consistent with the theme of the article. However, there is no further explanation or link to New Perceptionism in the history of Chinese literature. Without knowing this genre, I would be more confused by the significance of this genre in the history of Chinese literature, and I think my incomplete understanding of the Neo-Perceptual School will also affect my understanding of Mu Shiying's literature and other aspects.

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?

Organization evaluation
The added content is very well written, very concise, clear and easy to read, and there are no obvious grammatical errors. The added content mainly focuses on Mu Shiying's literary style and its influence on later generations. The arrangement of the content is reasonable, however, I think that under the current progress, some aspects of the subtitles are not clearly explained in the main body.

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 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?

Overall evaluation
I think the added content is also very interesting. The author uses as simple language as possible to summarize Mu Shiying's literary achievements and his influence on later generations. The only thing that seems a little inadequate to me is that the added content lacks an explanation of the "New Perceptionism" in the paragraph, but simply mentions the time of its rise and the relationship between Mu Shiying and this school. I can understand that the author wants to focus on introducing Mu Shiying himself instead of other parts that are not so relevant, so whether it is possible to add an external link to the explanation of this proper noun so that people who refer to it will facilitate further understanding and learning?