User:Qmao12/Shen Congwen/Wquon 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)
  • Qmao12
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Qmao12/Shen Congwen

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, intro has more information now.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the article "Shen Congwen" mentions the individual right at the start.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Somewhat, talks of his major works and his career, but missing some points.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Looks like the information is discussed later on.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Other than the titles of the books, it is not overly detailed and briefs over each subject/time period he put work in.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, talks about his added work.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Not sure because I can't check sources.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Content seems relevant.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Most of it seems so
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Possibly? Saying that it has a high reputation and regarded as a classic work (last sentence)? However, if its a popular opinion then it probably isn't too "wrong".
• 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, not really.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • No sources added.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • NA
• Are the sources current?
  • NA
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • NA
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • NA

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • and so on, and essays "Atobiography of Congwen", "Prose of Xiang Xing", "Xiangxi" and so on. -> Using "and so on" twice in a sentence here does not flow well and sounds awkward.
  • But from the 1950s, -> Avoid starting a sentence with "But". In this case, you can just remove it.
  • His book is "Study of Ancient Chinese Dress". -> What about this book? He has lots of books. Your following sentence talks about this book, maybe you can connect it into one sentence.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • and essays "Atobiography of Congwen" -> Autobiography
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Somewhat, seems to chronologically organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No
• Are images well-captioned?
  • NA
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • NA
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • NA

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?
  • The content adds more information at the intro, which helps people confirm if the information their looking for is in this page.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Good chronological outline of how he progressed on in his life.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • His works could possibly be added into their own section, with more details in there.
  • It looks like family life was about to be added as well, so possibly add a mention about his family into the intro as well.
  • "This book is the crystallization of Shen Congwen's achievements since he engaged in cultural relic research" -> I'm not sure if crystallization is the best word to use here. I think i understand your intention with it, but I don't know if this should be used here.

Overall evaluation

Good start! Hopefully the suggestions above can help improve your work!