User:Jules2992/Heritability of autism/PsychgirlTYTY 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

(Jules2992) Heritability of Autism

Link to draft you're reviewing: Editing User:Jules2992/Heritability of autism - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Heritability of autism - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead is updated by the new editor of the article. The lead is clear and concise. It provides a good opening for all of the other subplots within the article. I love that the editor decided to give more information in the lead due to some of the information being from 2010.

Content:

The content is up to date. The editor took the time and effort to improve the information by researching more information from over the year 2010. I like that the content has good explanations, nice bullet points, and good organization. It is very easy to follow and see what the message is being conveyed. It does deal with the fact that Autism can only be 30%-40% by genetics. The other percentage has a gap that needs to be discovered or maybe looked at through research.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is very neutral with content that is not heavily biased. I feel that the editor truly wanted to be descriptive and not persuasive. In the article the words are chosen very carefully to go along with the theme of being informative. The viewpoints are mostly overrepresented as the editor focuses on specific key points related to Autism. Those points are the main theme of the article and are clearly addressed as you read.

Sources and References:

The Sources are very diverse and from different kinds of places. The links are working properly that if you click on them it takes you to another page with the information. The editor did a good job finding a lot of sources. However, my suggestion would be to go back and see if they are in tune with the laws of Wiki Edu. Sometimes we are tempted to use a primary source. I need to check my article and make a lot of edits.

Organization:

The article is very easy to read and follow along. The organization is very detailed and catches the attention of the user. My suggestion would be to see if any of the information can be summarized in a way that is not so lengthy. Due to the fact that this generation has a short attention span. Otherwise, the editor really brought the research to life the way they revised this article.

Overall Impressions:'

First, I would like to say a great job! I feel that the content is very well done and concise. I wish that I could give more help to find secondary sources, but I need help myself. My suggestions would be to recheck that issue, go back for grammar issues if any, check to see if it information can be cut, and try to find more recent articles. However, ultimately this article was very good, and the effort is shown well.