User:Lingsha999/Xiao Hong/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? Lingsha999
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lingsha999/Xiao Hong

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 of the article is very written and provides a good summary of her life. Since she used many different names, this gives the reader a general sense of all of them and where she got these names from. I found the lead interesting and it's also concise, so it's able to grab the reader's attention without boring them.

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 added is relevant and up-to-date. As this is an article on a person's life, there hasn't been much discussion on historically underrepresented populations. However, I think that's alright and the discussion of equity gaps doesn't need to happen unless it's relevant. I also found the content really interesting and I think everything that has been written is relevant and belongs in the article.

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 neutral and doesn't contain any biases towards a position. While reading, I felt that the information was informative and objective, and I didn't feel like I was being persuaded to take a certain position.

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 sources used seem to be reliable and thorough sources of information and are both decently current. I clicked open the links and they work. However, both these links are only accessible to University of Alberta students, and are not stable links that everyone can access. I would suggest putting in the citation using the ISBN number, or otherwise finding a stable link that people without a University of Alberta ID could also access. Another thing is that I think you should put in more in-text citations! Do it as you go along so that you don't have to spend more time looking for the sources again later on.

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 article is well organized and there are a lot of headings that help the reader find what they're looking for. The paragraphs are also split up nicely, so each point is concise. Make sure that all your writing is in past tense, since it seems to switch a few times. However, there are some grammatical and spelling errors I'll point out, with advice on how to change it.

For the Lead, there are some punctuation and grammar errors that could be fixed. Additionally, I think it would be better to include the English translation of a certain word first, and then put the pinyin and Chinese characters into brackets. I would make the following changes: "Her infant name (乳名 ruming) was Zhang Ronghua (張榮華). Her formal school name (學名 xueming) was Zhang Xiuhuan (張秀環). Later on, her name was changed to Zhang Naiying (張廼瑩) by her grandfather. She also used the pen name Qiao Yin."

"her father, he was apparently a difficult man who was cold and ruthless" to "her father, who was apparently a cold, ruthless, and difficult man"

"(Pubilshed on 1979 )" to "(Published in 1979)"

"Through Xiao Hong's biography whose childhood set the pattern for her future relationships with her friends and lovers." to "Through Xiao Hong's biography, it's stated that her childhood set the pattern for her future relationships with her friends and lovers." The use of "whose" implies that the sentence hasn't ended and will continue.

There are a few other grammar/spelling errors, but they should be easy to fix. Make sure to proofread your writing and make sure everything makes sense. Once you've proofread it, I would be happy to help you look through it again to make sure there aren't any more errors! Just let me know and I can help!

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, your content is really good for an early draft! Everything you've included in your article so far is interesting and relevant. It's also well organized so it makes it easier to read as everything is concise and clear. My suggestion for you right now is to fix some grammar errors by proofreading and include more in-text citations. Try to start referencing from other sources now too since you have a really good foundation and just need to build on that and add more information now.