User:Yyba12/Kang Youwei/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)  Yyba12；
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yyba12/Kang Youwei

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
Actually, i cannot find the clear lead part. So, i am trying to consider the first paragraph as the lead. The first sentence as introduction was very clearly.

However, maybe you should add a description to explain your context generally, because of the information is short ,so maybe you can improved them after writing the content. In general, it is concise, if you could add the clear structure of lead, which will be wonderful !

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
Generally, you content is great! The content is matched this character and the related topic. However, I cannot find the useful source or content nowadays, maybe you can add some social comments of Kang's. Moreover, the content is satisfied the requirements. Nevertheless, because the article is incomplete now, so i cannot decided the work has deal with the gaps or not. However, indeed, it gives the major historical events and topics of Kang. It looks like the complement information.

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 tone is neutral and informed.

The claim also are just providing the facts. Besides, the viewpoints are suitable and useful, it informed reader the facts and information about Kang.

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 information are reliable i think ,however because it doesn’t provide the secondary source information, so i can not surely about that, however, for the bibliography, it is clearly and current. Most of them are published on 2010 and the later.

The sources reflect the "Da Tong Shu" as a major contribution of Kang's, which is a reliable and strong evidence. The source in bibliography was diversified and covered a lot of perspectives of Kang's life. However ,i am sorry that i could not find the links in the 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 well-written with great grammar and it is concise, because the content just two paragraphs, so it cannot see the whole organization of this article.

The topic sentences are well and the following evidences support them sufficiently.

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 and media added in article.

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 thought the content are satisfied the characteristic of Kang's and conclude his major achievements.

However ,i think maybe you should try to find more new ideas and theory about him, especially for some thoughts are not familiar with public.

That will make the content be more useful and effective. All in all, your content is well and clear now.