User:Colgateplants/Antheridiogen/Epezzuto 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) Colgateplants
• Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colgateplants/sandbox?

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - lead that was there before suffices.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No - explains what antheridiogen is
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation

The lead is concise and gives a good description of the article topic. However, I would mention the article's other main sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No - everything fits nicely
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation

Overall content is good. Nicely explains antheridiogen and sections fit well. Maybe need to work on parts of Pathway section - see below.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not necessarily, but I would introduce ESD earlier than you did or explain ESD in relation to antheridiogens to a greater extent. It seems that you talk about sex determination beforehand but don't mention it until the end.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

I found the tone to be very neutral and not at all persuasive or biased.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes - but I would add a citation to the end of the first paragraph under the Pathway section.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but I would fix reference 3 and 7 citation. No date on ref. 4 and 8 citation.
• Are the sources current? For the most part, yes. Two sources are missing dates in citation and one older source references the first finding of antheridiogen. For the most part sources are 1990 or newer.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not that I am aware of. But it does seem that every source comes from different authors in different countries.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do. I checked 4 and all worked.

Sources and references evaluation

Sources seem good and come from a diverse set of literature. Need to fix some citations.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, what was added was well-written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I noticed there is a misspelling of the word 'antheridiogen' under the Discovery section.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is.

Organization evaluation

Overall very well-organized. The different sections fit nicely. Fix spelling mistake.

Images and Media - N/A

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 - N/A

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? Yes, the article is more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Nicely added history and important pathways associated with antheridiogen, as well as connected it to animals. Explained different theories.
• How can the content added be improved? I think by expanding more on the sex determination part of the topic or moving parts around to make it more clear could be helpful.

Overall evaluation

Overall, I thought the draft was great. There isn't much to improve on in terms of content except for some of the pathway section. Fixing a bit of the references would be good too. I'm not sure what the author is planning on for figure/image, but that would have been helpful to see as well. The author nicely explained antheridiogen and made it concise and easy to follow.