User:Jiayi Li/Lü Bicheng/Emmazjia 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? User:Jiayi Li
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jessie JIayi Li/Lü Bicheng

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
No Lead has been written yet. The Lead on the original article is pretty concise and I think you could expand on it a little bit to include the descriptions of what you'll be discussing throughout the article.

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
All the content that has been added as of now is relevant and up-to-date. The content is also engaging and interesting and I can't pick out anything that doesn't belong. There's currently not much surrounding equity gaps, but I feel that it's due to this being a biographical article, so there may not be much to discuss in that area.

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
There seems to be hints of bias in the writing. For example, the use of "very talented person" and "educational environment is better than ordinary people". A way to get rid of bias for "very talented person" would be to find someone that did call her that, as it feels like you're stating from your point of view that she's talented. If there is no way to back up this information, it's best to remove it. For "educational environment is better than ordinary people", you could discuss and describe her learning environment to show how it was better than the average person's. However, this information should be backed up with a source.

Otherwise, there are no claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position and the hints of bias in this article are slight and can be fixed easily.

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 information in this draft is well cited. The sources that have been used as of now appear to be quite current and are all peer edited, making the reliable sources of information. All the links are also easily accessible and work.

A suggestion I would give is that I saw you used one source multiple times, but they're listed as difference references. When you're citing something, there's a bar that says "re-use" where you can easily cite one of the sources you used before, and it'll combine all of it into one citation. This will help with organization for both you and the reader.

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 information presented is concise, clear, and well organized. Your headings and subheadings make it easy to navigate the article. However, there's a few grammatical/spelling errors that you could improve on and I'll point them out below, along with suggestions on how to fix them.

"However, Lü saw yuan's..." Yuan should be capitalized here

"Lü bicheng established Beiyang..." Bicheng should be capitalized

"In Mount Lu Lü Bicheng" There should be a comma between Mount Lu and Lü Bicheng

These errors are all minor and can be fixed easily. Fixing them would help with the flow of the article and make it look nicer. Just make sure to proofread your paragraphs quickly, as I'm not sure if I caught all of the errors.

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
No images have been added yet.

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
Overall, I feel that adding this information to your article will improve the quality of the article. There's some slight grammatical errors and slight bias that could be fixed easily and will allow the content you've already added to flow better. Otherwise, all your information is backed up with reliable sources and the content is interesting. One last thing is that in your paragraph about Mount Lu, I feel like the one large paragraph could be split into 2 in order to make it easier to read. I would split it after the line "After that, at the Fairy Glen Hotel she fashioned herself as a free female without a bond.".