User:Sleepwhenyouredead/Strange Beasts of China/Jsheets367 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sleepwhenyouredead, AnnaliseD0d, and JoshuaW25.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sleepwhenyouredead/Strange_Beasts_of_China?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead summarizes the article well, briefly previewing each major section except Themes and Authorship Style. In the lead, "although" should be changed to "and." In the same paragraph, "beast" could be made plural, though might be fine in the singular.

The summary is descriptive and is easy to understand. It is not clear to the reader what meaning of "old" is intended when referring to the professor, whether elderly or previous. In the themes section, "(the six realms)" could help clear confusion after "samsara," as samsara has not yet been defined as the six realms.

The article could benefit from placing the Beasts section before the Themes section, as then the reader would have all the prior context necessary to understand the themes of the novel.

In the subsection describing Sorrowful beasts, "loosing" should be changed to "losing." Also, if direct quotes are not allowed on Wiki articles, then the quote in this section should be paraphrased. Regarding formatting, it would be nice if the Sorrowful beasts title and the Thousand League beasts titles were placed at the start of their respective sentences.

All of the facts in the article are backed by a source. However, in the Translation section, source number 8 should be added after the second paragraph. While it is placed after the third, it would be good to have it after a paragraph break.

There is no image in the article, which could help better it. The article also does not have an info box and could benefit from one.

Overall, the article is well-written and easy to understand from one who has not read the book. Other than a few minor issues, there are no glaring concerns. The article is written in a neutral tone and does not have any claims that appear to hold bias. The links work and seem to be reliable.