User:Reuentahl404/Mao Dun/Brittanyli 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? Reuentahl404
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Reuentahl404/Mao Dun, Mao Dun

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 article lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer, but I don't know if it needs to be. The article is about the author's entire life and career while my peer is writing on a very specific topic regarding the author, so it doesn't make sense to reference the content added directly, but it may be helpful to at least reference the overall major section that my peer is writing about. The existing lead is very concise and does not include many descriptions of the article's major points. It also does not contain information that is not present in the article.

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 that has been added is relevant and current. There is some information and content that is missing, but I presume that we will see more content when the draft is edited and expanded and more sources are referenced. The content within the article that my peer is working on addresses historically underrepresented 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
The content that is added is almost entirely neutral, apart from the sentence "There is an obvious transition of female characters' identity in Mao Dun's work before and after 1930s." which is persuasive and biased towards a particular position. Changing the word 'obvious' may help with this claim.

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
There is only one source added so far, the source is relevant and current. The link also works.

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 content that was added so far is concise, clear and easy to read. There were a few grammatical errors such as the lack of the word "the" in front of time periods mentioned (eg. after the 1920's vs after 1920's). There was also one instance where the tense changed from past to present. So far, the content is well organized.

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
My peer did not add any images or media.

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
My peer is working on an existing 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
Overall, the content that was added will add to the completion of the article as it will fill one of the information gaps on the article. The content references specific works by the author and I found that the addition of the Chinese characters added to the article. Once more sources and information are added, the content will greatly improve.