User:Jiayi Li/Lü Bicheng/Lingsha999 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)Jessie JIayi Li
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jessie JIayi Li/Lü Bicheng 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
I think this introduction is very concise. It is a very brief introduction to critical information about Lü Bicheng. For me, I like this introduction very much.

Lead doesn't include information that is not present in the article

Is the Lead concise I like it very much.

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 are very neutral, especially on the life part, very brief, but with an excellent introduction to the essential pieces of Lü Bicheng.

Content is added up-to-date.

The content is also up to date but a little less detailed. No reference to Wikipedia's equity gaps. Personally, I think Lao She is a famous writer, so not related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

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 isn't an asserted point of view, just introducing Lü Bicheng's life and her Lushan experience and story with Buddhism. There is no exaggeration to convince the reader to support a point of view

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 new additions have a lot of cites to support the point of view. I think it's good, and it comes from different sources. A diverse spectrum writes the sources of authors. Links are working.

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
It is concise, clear, and easy to read, doesn't have any grammatical or spelling errors.

I just have a small problem with the Differences and Similarities Between Buddhism and Science section, which doesn't seem to be related to the work part. I think it would be possible to go into more detail about this section and then take it out separately.

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 or media added

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article

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 overall additions are all good and I hope to consider my suggestion that Differences and Similarities Between Buddhism and Science section, which doesn't seem to be related to the work part. I think it would be possible to go into more detail about this section and then take it out separately.