User:Qmao12/Shen Congwen/Wquon 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)
 * Qmao12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Qmao12/Shen Congwen

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, intro has more information now.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article "Shen Congwen" mentions the individual right at the start.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat, talks of his major works and his career, but missing some points.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Looks like the information is discussed later on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Other than the titles of the books, it is not overly detailed and briefs over each subject/time period he put work in.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, talks about his added work.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Not sure because I can't check sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content seems relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Most of it seems so
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Possibly? Saying that it has a high reputation and regarded as a classic work (last sentence)? However, if its a popular opinion then it probably isn't too "wrong".
 * 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?
 * No, not really.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No sources added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * NA
 * Are the sources current?
 * NA
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * NA
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * NA

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * and so on, and essays "Atobiography of Congwen", "Prose of Xiang Xing", "Xiangxi" and so on. -> Using "and so on" twice in a sentence here does not flow well and sounds awkward.
 * But from the 1950s, -> Avoid starting a sentence with "But". In this case, you can just remove it.
 * His book is "Study of Ancient Chinese Dress". -> What about this book? He has lots of books. Your following sentence talks about this book, maybe you can connect it into one sentence.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * and essays "Atobiography of Congwen" -> Autobiography
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Somewhat, seems to chronologically organized.

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?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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?
 * The content adds more information at the intro, which helps people confirm if the information their looking for is in this page.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good chronological outline of how he progressed on in his life.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * His works could possibly be added into their own section, with more details in there.
 * It looks like family life was about to be added as well, so possibly add a mention about his family into the intro as well.
 * "This book is the crystallization of Shen Congwen's achievements since he engaged in cultural relic research" -> I'm not sure if crystallization is the best word to use here. I think i understand your intention with it, but I don't know if this should be used here.

Overall evaluation
Good start! Hopefully the suggestions above can help improve your work!