User:Yuanmao1118/Su Manshu/Mian5 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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 lead has reflected the normal introduction about Su, i think. However, the lead has a clear introductory sentence about the character, it is concisely but fully.

I think the definition of Su like a brief description of himself, but it could be nice to add an effective one for the major sections.

The lead also satisfies the requirement of article in concise language.

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 are covered by the topic information. However the content just tell the background of Su in the early years, it doesn’t have the current resources.

The content are matched with the topic fully. There is no support evidence shows the gap solutions, maybe it could be added when the article has finished.

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 is neutral and informed. The claims are providing the information about Su's achievement in different fields.

The viewpoints are presented well and fully. The author's view is in the neutral position.

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
The secondary source in bibliography are reliable and strongly. I think the link are well done and it is easy to follow !

The sources are various and from different perspectives, it should be the strong evidence to show Su.

Also, i checked most of them are published in reliable academic publishers in recent years.

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 is concise and easy to read but short.

I love your writing style, however there exists the grammatical and spelling errors i think, like the mistake of" she" instead of "shu".

Moreover, i think maybe you should add a clear topic sentence at the beginning ,so that your structure will be stronger.

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
There is no 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?

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
I think your content has summarized the Su's entire life in a good way, however, maybe you should find more sources about his new ideas and stories into your article.

That makes your content be more effective and useful for readers.