User:Mobinwang/Feminism in China/Hedwig Li 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? Mobinwang
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mobinwang/Feminism in China

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. This peer didn't mention much about the new content in his Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The Lead introduce the topic with a clear concisely introduction.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. It provides a brief generalization to the main section of the Feminism history in China.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. It provides the cause of Feminism raise in China, which doesn't present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes. The overall of the Lead part is clear and detailed.

Lead evaluation
The Lead here gives a brief introduction, and it provides details for the main contents of the history. I would suggest that you could mention more about the influence to the movement, or literature in your Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The added content gives more specific descriptions on the women's history of matriarchal China and Feudal China, which are related to the background of the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. In the content, the links work very well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes. The content here is missing part of the 21 century Feminism movement in China.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. But I think this topic is relate to the gender gap, so the peer could mention this discussion in his content.

Content evaluation
Overall the content of the history part is well detailed. You could add the discussion about the equity gaps in your content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. Most of the point of views are neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes. The quote from Ding Ling's view is a little bit overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Even though the opinions from Ding Ling are kind of overrepresented, but it is an introduction to the opinions of Chinese Feminist during the 1950s, so I think this is acceptable in this work. The peer created a neutral work.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No. Most of the author are historians.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. But some need a specified library access to open it.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall most of the sources work well, but some need an access to read it by free, I cannot check.

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? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. the contents were organized by the timeline.

Organization evaluation
The organization here is pretty good. I did't see any errors in the contents, and it is clear, easy to read.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Images and media evaluation
No image include in the new content. But you may add those already show in the wikipedia page.

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
I don't think this is 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? Yes. It provides more detail in the history content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The new content is specific and clear, which could help reader build a basic impression to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Reducing overrepresented by one, instead of adding opinions from different people.

Overall evaluation
Overall this draft works very well. Those suggestions that I mentioned before you could work on those parts.