User:Yuxiang4/Lao She/Emmazjia 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? Yuxiang4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yuxiang4/Lao She

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
There doesn't seem to be a Lead in the sandbox draft as the focus seems to be on article content rather than lead, as of now. However, in the original article, the Lead seems to be concise and informative. There is a citation missing in the Lead of the original article, so it would be helpful to find a source that backs up what's being said.

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 added so far is relevant, up-to-date, and is also interesting. I think that everything that has been written so far could be easily incorporated into the article. There's still parts of the original article that could obviously be added to, but as this is only an early draft, I think the content is good.

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
All of the content in this draft is neutral and I don't see any traces of bias towards a certain view point. There doesn't seem to be anything in this so far that could be represented by various viewpoints as it's currently just discussing his works and personal/work life. In terms of tone and balance, I think there isn't much to change right now.

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
Only one source has been used as of now, but the it looks like a reliable source of information. The source was published in 2007 so it not outdated and I was also able to easily find the source online. As of now, I think it's best to focus on finding more sources to back up your information and solidify the content in your article.

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, clear, and well organized. The headings are very helpful. However, I found some grammatical and spelling errors that could be changed. For example, "5.4 movement" should be changed to "May Fourth Movement" to make it more clear to the reader what you're trying to express. Additionally, for the parts where you include pinyin and the English translation, I feel like it would be better to put the English first and the pinyin in the brackets. Many people who are reading the article may not know how to read pinyin so putting it originally in English will make it easier to understand. There are some other grammatical errors and suggestions I included below:

"as the name of author" could be changed to "as his pen name"

"expressed the public normal lives" could be changed to "expressed the day-to-day lives of the general population"

"Chinese notable author" could be changed to "notable Chinese author"

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
No images have been added as of yet.

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
The article feels more engaging and the information that has been added will improve the overall quality of the article. Since the original article is lacking in citations, I think a big priority should be focusing on finding sources to back up some of the uncited claims in the article. Something I found especially interesting is how he came up with his pen name and I feel that that's a good addition to the article. Overall, the content is good! Focus on fixing some minor grammar errors and it would make your article more cohesive!