User:WLindaD/Li Shengsu/Natfowler99 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)
 * I am reviewing WLindaD.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:WLindaD/Li Shengsu

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Right now, there are only slight changes made to the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead has an introductory sentence that summarizes Li Shengsu very well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not all of the article's major sections are included in the Lead yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, most of the information in the Lead section is elaborated in the "Roles and Positions" section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise and does not include any irrelevant information.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead covers important details of the topic and is clear and concise, but should include more of what the rest of the article is going to talk about. You can include a short overview of her acting career and mentioning that she has been in performances all over the world as well as participating in some film.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content that has been added is relevant to Li Shengsu.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, out of the English sources, they all seem to be within this decade, so the information is very up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * None of the added content does not belong to the relevancy of the topic. I know you couldn't find any information on her family, but other than that I do not see any missing content. Has she had any partners?

Content evaluation
Overall, the added content of this article is extremely relevant and enhances the article to a great extent. Before, there wasn't any information on the subject but the added content is up-to-date and substantial.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is almost all neutral. The sentence "Because of her beautiful singing, unique personality, and skilled performance, Li Shengsu was highly popular with her audience" may seem a little in favor of her, but it could be interpreted in a way that shows why she was popular.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no critiques or controversies added about Li Shengsu, but since there aren't any to begin with, there is no way to add it into the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None of the viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented since there is not a stance that is not in favor of the topic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader of any kind of side or position.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader of any kind of side or position.
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader of any kind of side or position.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone and balance is neutral and gives an unbiased viewpoint of the subject. Since there are no criticisms about the subject, it cannot be offered in the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the new content is from reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough and offer relevant information on the subject.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, as mentioned before, all of the articles in English come from only a few years ago, so they are very current. Also, since the subject is not that old it is beneficial to the currency of the topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links from the reference section work.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links from the reference section work.
 * All of the links from the reference section work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the sources and references are up-to-date and reliable. I am sure the sources in Chinese are highly valuable in content as the ones in English are.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the new content is very well-written and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * This is very nit-picky, but some typos occur in the "Acting Career" section: extra period after "ten years old", missing word between "Li" and "assigned", "further" is misspelled. Other than those very small errors, the grammar and spelling are good!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content that has been added is extremely beneficial to further the understanding of the topic. The information is in a good order.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization is very good and easy to read. It covers her career in a chronological way and it is good that the last section are her accomplishments to show you how all of her hard work paid off.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not yet include images that enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

This is a revision of an existing article, therefore this section is not applicable.


 * 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?
 * Since the original article barely had any content, yes the content that you provided majorly impacts the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * In general, you added basically all the information there is to know about this person. The tables and lists that you included really help the reader know what kinds of contributions Li Shengsu has made and are displayed in a clear and concise way.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Besides very minimal typos, all you have to do now is elaborate on the Lead section and try adding some images and media.
 * Besides very minimal typos, all you have to do now is elaborate on the Lead section and try adding some images and media.

Overall evaluation
Overall, your contributions to this article are extremely beneficial to the understanding of your topic. I found no missing information (other than family life and critiques), but since no written information on these topics can be found, it has to be omitted. As we've discussed, the Lead section should review what the rest of the article is focusing on and pictures would benefit the article as well. You made so much substantial content to this article, it's so good!!!