User:Littlemissgemini/Nie Gannu/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? Littlemissgemini
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Littlemissgemini/Nie Gannu

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Mostly yes. I think adding in Nie Gannu's nationality would be important.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? To some extent yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Unsure as of right now as only the Lead is present.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think for the most part it is concise. I think if anything, I would reduce how much information was present on his time in the labour camps and instead saved that amount of detail for its own section.

Lead evaluation:
I think overall the lead is really good. There is new information offered in this Lead than the original. In someway if you could combine them together, I think the lead would be even better as both this lead and the original lead offer different information about Nie Gannu. And as I mentioned above, I think having a section totally devoted to Nie Gannu's life and experiences and the reason behind him being placed in the labour camps would also be a good addition to the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there is some content missing based on what the original Lead presents. As I said early, I think combining them together would be a really good idea.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not really.

Content evaluation:
As of right now, everything in this new Lead belongs where it is. I definitely think combining some of the Lead from the original article is also a good idea. I think the fact that he joined a writing organization which held left-wing views, along with the magazine he worked for, and the various prose collections he wrote would be good to add in as they show what a progressive thinker and writer he was at the time and explain a little bit more as to the reasons behind his imprisonment and working on the farms. While this does not need to be in great detail for the Lead, I think it would be important to bring it up.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, but I think some background knowledge/links to other Wikipedia pages would be important to outline that the government today in China and the government in 1958 were not the same entity and were functioning under different belief systems. I think a brief comment as to why he was sent to these farms would be good to make (Anti-Rightest Campaign).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not intentionally. I think a comment about the Anti-Rightest Campaign needs to be made however. Currently it sounds like the Chinese government of today and of 1958, which are very different, are the same thing. I think adding in the name of the campaign enacted by Mao in 1958 will clear this up however.

Tone and balance evaluation:
I think the lead offers a neutral perspective on the situation. As I've noted, I would maybe clarify that it was under the Anti-Rightest Campaign that he was sent to the labour camps. While there is nothing wrong with saying the Chinese government/leader/party sent him there, there is little context as to why he was sent there. So I think adding in the actual name of the campaign will clarify who/which party sent him there.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It appears so yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, compared to what the UofA offers of his works/on him (mostly 1980's), these sources are incredibly current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I am unsure.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation:
The sources you have provided seem really good! You also did a good job referencing them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. There are a few places were present tense is used instead of past tense (example: "Nie Gannu is an essayist", whereas it should be "Nie Gannu was an essayist").
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Unsure yet as only the lead is present.

Organization evaluation:
I think overall the organization is really good in the lead. I am excited to see how you organize the rest of the article because there is clearly a lot that happened in his life. I would definitely suggest having a section discussion what his writings were about, if you can find that find of information.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (Littlemissgemini did not add any images and there are no images on the original article either).


 * 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I think the list is getting there.
 * 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? No but neither does the original. I think an information box which gives his place of birth and death along with dates, his education, work places, political beliefs, etc would be an important thing to add in.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No but It definitely should have some. Topics like Huangpu Military school, Un Yat-sen University, Cultural Revolution, would all be important to add links to. This allows viewers to do further learning on these topics if they are not familiar with them. Not all of these may have links available, but looking into it is also important.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. I think the new lead offers a lot more information than the previous lead. But this lead also misses things that are noted in the original lead. Hence, I would suggest adding in those parts of the original lead not talked about in this lead.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the amount of information given in the lead is really good. Its general but also offers some small detials. I think a viewer could look at this and get a grasp for who Nie Gannu was.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would like to see in the article some more details about Nie Gannu's beliefs and what he wrote about. I think that would be really important to talk about. I would also add one sentence in the lead to briefly note what he wrote about too. While it is great to see all of the literary achievements and jobs he had, I think knowing what he believed in and wrote about is also curial.

Overall evaluation:
Overall I think this new lead is really strong. I liked the new information offered in this lead. I think combining the two leads together would help even more. Also, make sure to keep your article consistently in past of present tense. This is can be super hard to do sometimes, but its important to keep it consistent so your audience doesn't get confused. I'm excited to read the rest of the article once it is done! Good job!