User:Julianloll/Baojuan/Bokchoychoy Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Julianloll

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Julianloll/Baojuan
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Baojuan

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The information added to the lead section is extremely useful. Its nature as a devalued commoner's art is immediately apparent in these edits, something the original neglects to touch on despite that being a very important distinction.

Content

The content of these edits is appropriate and matches the original article's content while also providing further information. The new information makes sense, especially the revelation that early baojuan literature of the 13-15th centuries was Buddhist propaganda. Given that the original article claims baojuan was in a vernacular and not in classical Chinese, this meshes with the Song Dynasty print literature boom, the renovation of the Grand Canal, and wider spread of Buddhism amongst more common folk.

The editor has included some marvelous information on the origins of the baojuan genre and scholarly study on it which were all but missing in the original article.

The nature of baojuan as a commoner's form of moralizing entertainment addresses a class divide related knowledge gap that persists in Chinese studies. This knowledge gap is likely a large reason why the original article is so short.

Tone and Balance

Wording and language in these edits is appropriately neutral. There are no attempts made to persuade the reader and no particular viewpoints seem to be prioritized.

Sources and References

All of the sources are from scholarly publications like university presses or research non-profit journals. The sources given are all very current, with the earliest being from 2013 and the most recent being from 2019. It seems scholars have given baojuan fairly little attention until recent years, so the additions to the article on the editor's part will be very well timed. All of the links work. Where I could access the texts, the claims made in the edits are congruent with claims in the sources with no plagiarism I could detect.

Organization

These edits are easy to understand, though there are a few awkward sentences that could be easily improved. It is clear which sections of the article the paragraphs of the edit would fit into, and they would fit in neatly.

Images and Media

No images or media have been added as of yet, but I can imagine this would be a difficult topic to find a suitable image for.

Overall Impressions

These edits certainly give a greater picture of the nature of baojuan and enrich the knowledge already within the article and will more than double its length. The edits help fill an equity gap, provide more historically and culturally relevant background on baojuan, and would help someone unfamiliar with Chinese history understand the phenomenon more. Any tweaks to grammar will be simple. I can imagine this was a difficult topic to undertake given its rather specialized nature, but it has been handled responsibly.