User:Zeqin/Liang Qichao/AbRoseD98 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) Zeqin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zeqin/Liang Qichao

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. It appears to be far more in depth than the lead from the original article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Comparing the new lead to the original article, yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Comparing the new lead to the original article, it appears that everything mentioned in the new lead appears somewhere in the original article. Actually the only thing mentioned in the new lead not mentioned in the original article is the comment on social-Darwinism. I could not find reference to that in the original article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is concise. It offers a good summary/over view of his life and what her did/believed in.

Lead evaluation:
Your lead is really well organized and laid out in a comprehensive and easy to read manner. I also like that you offer some new information about Liang Qichao that is not featured in the original article. I would suggest when you add more to the article later on, explain his usage of Social-Darwinism. Right now it is unclear how he used that in his writings/beliefs.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think a further explanation of the his usage/belief in social-Darwinism will be important at some point in the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. Not that I could tell.

Content evaluation:
As I mentioned above, make sure to explain how he used social-Darwinism in his writings/how it influenced him. This can be done in one of the sections however and is not needed in the lead. But I would suggest explaining this a bit more in detail.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation:
I think you did a great job having a neutral tone. You presented the information in a clear manner with little to no personal opinion in the article. Good job.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It appears so yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think so yes.
 * Are the sources current? It appears that the majority of sources on the UofA's website are between the late 1990's and early 2010's. In that sense, I think these sources fall between that range.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It appears so yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
As of right now your sources seem fine. I would suggest having a notes section (where you put the specific page numbers) and a bibliography section (which has the source you used but not the specific page numbers).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. I think it could use a review for grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The lead is well organized. I am assuming when the article itself is finished with its various sections it will reflect the way the lead is organized.

Organization evaluation:
The lead was organized in a clear and easy to understand manner. I also liked the layout of the original article, so I think doing a combination of the two would be a really good idea. Or, adding some of the information you have presented and making a new section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (No images were added by Zeqin).


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The original one does yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? I would say they are to the point.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No. There is no information as to where the images come from and I could not find any links of the page. But this is not my classmates fault.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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? No But I think it needs to have this. I think it is important to link key people, ideas, and movements so viewers are able to learn more about topics they may not be familiar with.

New Article Evaluation:
It appears that as of right now, only the lead is present. Thus I do not know how applicable this is. However, I think this lead could really benefit from linking to other articles. There are lots of names, terms, and movements mentioned and I think being able to link to them would be helpful to a viewer.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think this new lead is far more comprehensive than the previous one. While I like the simplicity of the original, the new lead gives far more overview about who Liang Qichao was and what he was involved in/believed in.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the overview given is really helpful. You provided a great explanation of Liang Qichao's life and beliefs. I think if a viewer only read this lead, they would still understand a lot about him.
 * How can the content added be improved? Because I do not have any other material to read on this page, I am unsure how to give feedback. The biggest thing I can suggest, is like the original article on Liang Qichao, make sure to break up your article into various sections on his life, his beliefs, his literary career. etc. One section I did not see in the original article that might be important to add is a section/overview of what he did while he was in Japan. while there are comments on what he did in Japan throughout the article, it might not be a bad idea to also create a section which talks about his time in Japan. While it might seem redundant, it helps a viewer see all of that similar information in one place. Also make sure to re-read your lead again. There are some grammatical errors that need to be fixed ('youths' should be 'youth, "participated in the" instead of "participated the". Just small things.)

Overall evaluation:
I thought the lead you provided was really great. You gave clear information and I think if someone just read the lead they would understand more about Liang Qichao. Make sure to re-read your lead because it does have a few grammatical errors and some repeat words ("In the Education field, In the Education field" for example). However, I think you are on the right track for the rest of your article. I am excited to see the various subsections you choose to add. Good luck! :)