User:Ra5en/Cao Yu/Brittanyli 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? Ra5en
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ra5en/Cao Yu, Cao Yu

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

The lead has not been updated to reflect the content added by my peer, but I think my peer is adding to an existing major section on the article, so in this case the lead would not need to be edited to add the specific information that my peer is adding. The existing lead includes a concise and clear introductory sentence and does not contain any information that is not present in the article. It is quite concise and does not reference a lot of the major sections of the article.

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

The content that was added by my peer is relevant, current and does not contain any information that does not belong. So far, it does not 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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content is mostly neutral, but the first sentence is heavily biased that Cao Yu is "one of the most remarkable playwrights in the mid 20th century in China". It would be more helpful to say something like "many regard Cao Yu as one of the most remarkable playwrights."

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 content is supported by reliable sources that are thorough and current. They do not seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors nor include historically marginalized individuals, but I don't know if including historically marginalized individuals would be possible for this topic. The links that are added both 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?

Organization evaluation

The content that was added is well-written and contains few errors. It is well organized and flows well with the information.

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

My peer did not add any images or media.

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?

New Article Evaluation

My peer is working on an existing article.

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

Overall, the content that was added will add to the completion of the article. The information that was added was presented in a very organized matter and was informative and interesting. One thing I did notice was that there were some sections of the article that seemed to be written in a more casual manner, such as the last sentence containing the phrase "till now" rather than "until now". It would also be helpful to add the section header that is being worked on so that the reader can tie the information to one of the sections.