User:Suv702/Guo Moruo/Min-Fan1 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) Suv702
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Suv702/Guo Moruo

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The introduction makes it clear to the reader which parts of the existing article you are making changes to.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
The title of the article I think could be improved a bit, like adding a few more main headings. I suggest you could take those subheadings you have and divide them into a few more categories and add some more main headings.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NO
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
What you have added is a very objective and detailed presentation of Guo Moruo's life and representative works.

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? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Every resource is clickable and peer reviewed!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is clear and easy to read.
 * 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? No

Organization evaluation
I'd suggest that maybe you could add a few more major headings.

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?

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Make the article more detailed and logical
 * How can the content added be improved? I would suggest you categorize the subheadings and add some main headings to give the article more framework

Overall evaluation
All in all, well done! New additions flesh out and make existing articles more specific. You just need to pay attention to your main headline.