User:Thunderbear65/Developmental plasticity/LE4rSt0966 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?

Thunderer65

Link to draft you're reviewing: N/A
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Developmental plasticity

Evaluate the drafted changes

Rather than focusing simply on the changes already made, I feel it be more productive to touch on both what is edited and what I believe this article could benefit from in terms of potential additions.

Lead: Concisely summarizes the topic at hand. While it does not have a a description of the article's major sections, I do not think that it is necessary in this particular scenario. Overall a good lead section for the article.

Content: The content observed in the article appears to be relevant to the topic, and answers the main questions that would arise while doing mild research into the subject, suiting the needs of the casual reader. There are some recent additions of information, but while glancing at the works cited section there are some articles that are rather dated, observing some that dated back to 1998/1999. There may be some more up to date resources now available to keep the article relevant and caught up on more modern findings. What this article could benefit from are perhaps more examples of developmental plasticity in organisms and nature, perhaps a dedicated portion of the article if deemed applicable.

Sources and References: There are some sections where citations are sparse, and perhaps more could be added to reinforce that information there. An entire section has only one citation. While it is not impossible to conclude all that information rom one source, it may be better practice to pull from multiple sources for a section. As stated above, some sources were a little dated and could use some updating in that regard. There are noted primary sources, which I feel are permitted given the nature of the article but I believe secondary are more preferred. I observed a textbook was cited recently, that it wonderful.

Organization: Overall seemed rather good.

Images and Media: No images currently exist on the article, but that is not inherently a bad thing. Perhaps some visual aids may help understanding, they may not be necessary. Adding some would only help.

Overall: Well done, aside from minor critiques this article has potential and the work on it thus far appears to be very good.