User:Ikura24/Liu Bannong/Yiming Alice Wang 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)Ikura24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ikura24/Liu Bannong

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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and overly concise.

Lead evaluation
New content was added to the Lead which reflects his relation with May Fourth. It includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes Liu's lifetime. There isn't a brief description of the article's major sections. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The Lead is overly concise.

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 contents added like Liu's works section is relevant to the topic. It is up-to-date, like the poetry part, used latest research. Topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics are not seen.

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 favour of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is mostly facts and written in a neutral tone, not biased. There is no criticism of Liu.

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
All new content are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, reflected the available literature on the topic. Most of them are current, written in last ten years. The links of sources works through checking. They are written by various authors. I don't know whether historically marginalized individuals are included.

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
There are grammatical errors in tense. In original text, it was written in past tense but the are present tense and present perfect tense in the content added. Otherwise, the content added is well-written and well-organized. It is concise, clear and easy to read And content is divided to three parts: life, literary reform and works.

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
The article become more complete and detailed with the content added, especially the table added makes the content more clear. It can be improved by expanding the context and adding more sections like people's evaluation to Liu.