User:Naomistow31/Extraterrestrial life/VishalliAlagappan 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?

Naomistow31

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Naomistow31/Extraterrestrial life
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Extraterrestrial life

Evaluate the drafted changes

(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.)

The addition to the lead skews more in that there is consensus in the theory of that life originated on Earth in extreme environments, which isn't wholly true since there are theories with significant evidence like the shallow warm waters theory. I would change the following sentence by removing the underline phrase and I think that helps remove some bias: "Hydrothermal vents, acidic hot springs, and volcanic lakes are all prime examples of life forming under difficult circumstances, and could provide parallels to the extreme environments on other planets and give hope to the possibility of extraterrestrial life." I would also make the first sentence more concise by removing the underlined phrase and adding the bolded: "Furthermore, when considering the atmospheric composition and harsh ecosystems hosted by these extraterrestrial bodies, the matter of extraterrestrial life seems more of a speculation than reality due to the harsh conditions and disparate chemical composition of the atmospheres when compared to the life-abundant Earth."

In the body, I would change the topic sentence to: "Due to the harsh conditions and disparate chemical composition of the other planets' atmospheres in comparison to the life-abundant Earth, they are deemed too extreme to harbor any life." This is basically a rephrasing that omits the "it is common knowledge" sentiment. Cut out the underlined, repetitive: "The environmental conditions on these planets can have intense UV radiation paired with extreme temperatures, lack of water, and much more that can lead to conditions that don’t seem to favor the creation or maintenance of extraterrestrial life."

Alright, I'm gonna pivot a little bit and rather than go sentence by sentence, I'm just gonna say that the first paragraph can be condensed done to a couple sentences.

The second paragraph is great. I would still try to be brief.

I would actually add some more about life in other harsh environments, you teased in the lead acidic hot springs and volcanic lakes and there is nothing about them on this section. I would also maybe talk a little bit about current parallels to other planets' environments that scientists are looking at. I found some icy lakes in the Antarctic that scientists are studying because they are similar to Europa's seas (Jupiter's moon). I found this article with a quick google search but you can try to find scientific articles that bolster your material: https://www.space.com/8959-parts-earth-similar-jupiter-moon-europa.html

Overall, great job! I would just be as concise as possible and try to add a bit more substantive examples.