User:Banthas/Restriction fragment mass polymorphism/22alia 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?

Banthas

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Banthas/Restriction fragment mass polymorphism
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Restriction fragment mass polymorphism

Evaluate the drafted changes

- The lead is unchanged from the article's current state. It does an okay job of summarizing the "Overview" and "Methodology" sections, but it does not match any of the content in the "Application" section. It also does not cite any sources. This could be fixed by talking about the applications listed in the lead in the "Application" section, and adding a sentence to the lead about HPV detection.

- The content added is relevant- it explains how this process actually works and how it is used.

- Most of the sources in the "Applications" section are from 2011 to 2013- if there are any more recent sources, consider using them instead.

- The "Overview" section is a little confusing right now. The first sentence says that RFMP is the use of MALDI-TOF, but, if I understood correctly, that is just one step in the process. This section should instead start with a more general overview, more similar to what is currently in the lead section.

- The line "with the intent to allow for more SNP polymorphisms" should be fixed. I'm not sure what you mean by "more", since my understanding is that RFLP cannot detect SNPs at all. (Also, "SNP polymorphism" is redundant, you can just say "SNP")

- There are a few grammatical errors throughout that need to be fixed. Also, at the start of the "Application" section, it says "RFMP can serve as a more general functionality" when (I assume) it should say "RFLP"

- I am not sure if the section describing its use for HPV detection is properly "balanced"- it may be worth checking with a professor or TA

- Overall, good job! This is a very good expansion of the original article, it just needs to be polished a little