User:Sales.Alf/Pegasus (film)/Yuwei19 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sales.Alf, Grotle07151129, Haojun1997


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sales.Alf/Pegasus_%28film%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pegasus (film)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: Doesn't seem to be any different from the present article's lead section. It is slightly scarce, but could potentially be updated with a few of the accolades given to the film covered in the Awards and Nominations section.

Content: More detailed Awards and Nominations, Production, and Box Office information is provided, adding onto sections that were previously quite thin. The Plot blurb is a little bit short compared to the lengthy section on the existing article. While the existing article's Plot section is definitely on the long side and is presented with unprofessional (?) language, the new proposed Plot blurb might benefit from a few more plot details if any other relevant ones exist. The language and presentation of the new Plot blurb is an improvement but can still be expanded a bit.

Tone and balance: Tone is impartial and objective.

Organization: The organization of passages is pretty solid. There are a few grammar inconsistencies to be aware of but that's an easy proofreading fix, no major issues. Only one thing stood out to me: maybe this part of the Background section, "The film gets to showcase various landscapes and terrains parts of country in China and Inner Mongolia; Bayinbulak, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, Xinjiang" would fit better in the Production section as it details locations that are used in the making of the movie.

References and sources: Links seem to work and are fairly recent.

Overall impressions: The additions made seem appropriate and up-to-date. Some grammar and formatting issues could be ironed out but nothing major. A few sections are still a little short, but could reflect a lack of accessible information on the topic, and the draft is still an improvement over the current article overall.