User:JiayiHannahMa/Bing Xin/AbRoseD98 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? JiayiHannahMa
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:JiayiHannahMa/Bing Xin

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. It appears to be the same lead used in the original Wikipedia article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the original Wikipedia article has a concise and clear topic sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? To some extent yes. However, I think a brief mention of her legacy would be important in the lead. Also a mention of what her work/stories focused on theme wise would also be important to add.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. It mentions how she was the chairperson pf the China Federation of Literary and Arts Circles but never gives a date nor an exploitation of what this is or what they did in this group.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is concise. However I think it could include a few more details about her legacy and a brief mention of what her work was about.

Lead evaluation:
I actually think the original Lead could use some more details in it. I think a quick introduction to what influenced her is an important thing to make note of. Even if a viewer does not read the whole page, just by reading the lead they should be able to slightly grasp who Bing Xin was, what she wrote on, and what influenced her. I think there is a lot of room to improve the Lead. I would definitely suggest looking to lead over and maybe adding a few more details about her overall (without going into too much detail).

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It appears so yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I can tell, no.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Again, no, not that I can tell.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, but in the last line of the 'Style' section, "our motherland" is used instead of "her motherland". I think The last sentence of the 'Style' section needs to be slightly rewritten because it comes across a bit patriotic and is slightly confusing in its meaning.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? As I mentioned, just that last sentence of the 'Style' sections comes across a little strong with its patriotic undertones. I think once that sentence is reworded it will be fine.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? Currently with that last sentence how it is I would say yes. But once it is changed I would say the tone with go neutral again.

Tone and balance evaluation:
I think in the original lead the tone is good. Just be careful in the 'Style' section that you are referring to Bing Xin's homeland as 'her homeland' and not "our homeland". It is important, even if you have a connection with the person or relate to them in someway (you share their opinion or believe in what they say) that you keep a neutral tone or else it makes the article seem biased which could make it loose creditability.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. The 'Style' section lacks sources or citation. Even if it is just noting which stories fit which style or genre, but there is nothing to back of the claims being made. It could just be the citations were not put in. Even if sources are used multiple times in one section, I still think it is important to put in citation. I really think it is important to go back through what you added and add in the appropriate citation where sources have been used for the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think so. When looking up the UofA library, it appears that most literature on the topic (in English and Chinese) are from 2000-2013 mostly.
 * Are the sources current? I think so.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They appear to be written by a variety of men and women with mostly East Asian ethnic backgrounds.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

Sources and references evaluation:
I think the 'Style' section is lacking a little bit in sourcing. Make sure to add in sources that you have used for the 'Style' section. :)

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The added parts make sense to the areas and sections they were added to. As I mentioned before, the section that needs the most work is the last paragraph of the style section. I am finding that section a little bit hard to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, but 'he' and 'our' are used in the last sentence of the 'Style' section (our) and used in the second sentence of the last paragraph in the 'Life' section (he). These need to be changed to the female pronoun. There are some moment of present tense being used when the rest of the sentence is in past tense (example: Influences by the May Fourth Movement and the New Culture Movement, Bing Xin transferred to the Department of Literature. Instead it needs to be 'Influenced".) I would also say that the first paragraph of the 'Style' section needs to be re-written or re-worded. It is slightly confusing. I find it hard to tell if male characters are being talked about or male readers of Bing Xin's work. I think that paragraph needs to be reworked to make it clear to the reader whether you are talking about Bing Xin's characters of readers/audience.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. It think some more could be added to the legacy section however. While I obviously do not know anything about this female writer, it seems that she left a legacy behind her. Even if that is just in reference to her nationalistic literature for children.

Organization evaluation:
I would suggest reading the 'Style' section over one more time. There are a few grammatical errors. While they are not major, they still pull the viewers attention away. I know even with my own article I made some errors with past and present tense sentences. I find reading the article out loud is a good tool to help catch any errors.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (JiayiHannahMa did not add any images or media).


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The original article has an image of Bing Xin.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The link previously given has been updated on the original website and I could not seem to find the image used from the Wikipedia article on that website. However, that is not my classmates fault.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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. And once that last sentence of the "Style" section is changed it will better.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No, I am sure there is more literature than what is featured. But I would also add that a lot of literature ends up repeating similar things.
 * 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? The original one yes. The new article adds in a new section/header, which is good.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The original one does yes, but the new sections added do not. I think that would be something to add specially because lots of other people are named in the 'Life' sections last paragraph.

New Article Evaluation:
My biggest suggestion with the 'Style' section would be to re-reading it to check for grammatical errors and understandability. I would also suggest that in the 'Life' section where you have added in some new sentences, also add links. I would assume some of the people and movements you mentioned might not be familiar to all viewers. Thus, I think adding in the links allows viewers to better understand Bing Xin and who she was connected with/what she was influenced by.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I definably think so yes. I think the 'Style' section really allows the viewer to understand her writing style in better detail and gives clarity about what her work featured/was about. Also about her audience.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the addition of the 'Style' section is really crucial to understanding Bing Xin's writing style, audience, and themes. Also what inspired her is also important.
 * How can the content added be improved? I just think a few of the paragraphs need to be slightly reworked from a grammar standpoint to make it clear who you are talking about. Please see my previous notes under Organization, Tone and Balance, and Sources for more clarification on this. Also, the original Lead while good, lacks information about what influenced her. While this does not need to be detailed, I think it is important in the Lead section to give more information about what influenced her and maybe who she wrote for/who her audience was. Again, this does not need to be detailed as you talk about it in detail in the 'Style' section, but I think a sentence on this would be important.

Overall evaluation:
As I mentioned, I think the addition of the 'Style' section to talk about her writings was a really good idea. I would suggest reading it over again to check for grammatical errors and understandability. I think the 'Lead' section could also benefit from some add ones. While the information provided now is good, it could use more information about her influences, who she wrote for, and maybe one or two of her book titles. As I said, the 'Style' section is really strong, it just needs to be looked over for grammatical errors and sentence structure. I think you're on the right track though! Good luck! :)