User:Vanessa R Garcia/Evolution by gene duplication/Wholdenwood Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? Vanessa R Garcia
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Evolution by gene duplication
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not really
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but under the first section Theoretical Models the publisher does a good job explaining the contents of the article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Kind of yes, it explains mutations and their gene duplications, which is talked about in the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.
Lead evaluation: The Lead section was in the wrong area. The first paragraph in the article is necessary giving the reader a bit of background information before talking about the different mutational capability models of a gene.[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the last edit was 2020
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No
- Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't believe so
Content evaluation: The content provided was well written yet lacked many citations for information represented.[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No because the author mentions some benefits and potential for a pseudogene
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation: Very good job for having unbiased writing.[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
- Are the sources current? The oldest source is from 1970 but other than that yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? No
- Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation: Understandably it's a difficult subject, but the publisher needs to include a bit more sources for information presented in the article.[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Decently so
Organization evaluation: The content provided is organized in a sequential manner.[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added? Understanding some lab environment gene experiments.
- How can the content added be improved? The content could only be further improved with more research and addition of reliable sources.