User talk:Weiwei961208/sandbox

Jinyoung18.40.85.51 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

1.	Looking at the lead (the opening paragraph) by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? If not, what information could be added to make a stronger lead? -	The lead is strong and easy for people to understand the definition of Huanguxi. -	It would be better if it started with a direct definition of Huanguxi, not Xiqu.

2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? What should be added or changed, in your opinion? -	It’s good. It is just curious why the meaning of the name is “Flower Drum Opera.” Do they actually use drums made of flowers? -	The title of the first section is “Origin,” but a part of the section is about the definition and the meaning of the name.

3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? -	The first three sections are about the history including the leading part. The leading part does not give more weight to certain parts of the article.

4.	Is anything in the lead missing? -	It would be better if there is a separate lead section explaining the detail of the definition, types, forms, etc.

5.	Is anything in the lead redundant? -	The first paragraph can be an independent leading section of the article.

6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? -	First three parts that are the most of the article contents is about the history of Huanguxi. Only a simple introduction of the famous plays is added at the last part.

7.	Is each section’s length equal to tis importance to the article’s subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? -	Most of the contents consist of the history of Huanguxi. -	It looks not important to include a lyric of “Bu Guo.”

8.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? -	The section of “Reformation” is mostly about a political intervention to the Huanuxi. Any viewpoints from a published source would be helpful.

9.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -	No. Tone of the article is very objective.

10.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? -	Usually, a political intervention to an art is criticized. None of this perspective is listed in this article.

11.	Are there any words or phrases that don’t feel neutral? For example, “the best idea,” ”most people,” or negative associations, such as “While it’s obvious that x, some insist that y.” -	“…vivid name” looks biased.

12.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, “some people say…” -	No.

13.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn’t mean “the best positive light” or “the worst, most critical light.” It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

-	No negative information can be found in this article.

14.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? -	No sources from blogs or self-published authors.

15.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. -	No. there are not.

16.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can’t find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn’t meant it’s presented accurately!

-	The last two sections do not have a supporting source.