User:Yuxiang4/Lao She/Lingsha999 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) Yuxiang4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Lao She/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
One confusing issue is that there is no link to the cite in Bibliography. But the wirter It is not very clear that the purpose of adding a lead is probably to introduce the origin of the pseudonym Lao She. and Lao She's First Published Article

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 added content is relevant to the topic.

Content is added up-to-date.

The content is also up to date but a little less detailed. No reference to Wikipedia's equity gaps. Personally, I think Lao She is a famous writer, so not related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

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 point of view is very neutral, and the main purpose is to calmly inform the readers of the origin of the first published work and pseudonym of Lao She, and I think it is better to put the pen name in the first part.

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
I mentioned in the first part that the links do not work well. I think the information is not exhaustive enough. It doesn't show what kind of literature it is. It would have been better if the follow-up had provided the perfect link.

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
it is concise, clear, and easy to read. I think there is no grammatical or spelling errors.

It seems that the origin of the pen name isn't big enough to be a big part of Wikipedia; it could be a small part of Lao She's basic data.

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 or media added

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article

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 the additions are significant; it's just that the pseudonym part isn't big enough to be a big enough point. I think he could be added to the old lead. Also I think we can add Lao She's First Published Article in the works part.