User:Vbam25/R1 plasmid/Tyingmyshiu 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? (Vbam25)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R1_plasmid&diff=985286759&oldid=854845379

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, I believe the lead has been updated to reflect the new content.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes I believe it does. I also believe the contribution by my peer has helped to describe the article's topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does move the article towards the major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes it does.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I believe that the lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, it helps to describe the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • I believe so, it is up to date when compared to the rest of the article.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No, I believe the content does belong in this article.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • I do not believe that it does.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the content is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, I do not believe that there are heavily biased claims.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, I do not believe so.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, I do not believe so.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • I was not able to access the sources that were presented.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • i could not access the sources, so I do not think that they are available.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources are relatively current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • I believe that they are.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links did not work for me.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, I believe that the content is well written, and is very easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No, it all seems to be grammatically correct.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, I believe that the content is well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, the image definitely helps to enhance the understanding of the topic.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • I think that there are some grammatical errors in the caption, but overall, it is well captioned.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes, I believe that they do adhere to copyright regulations.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • I feel that the image could be placed at the top of the page, in line with the beginning of the text, but overall, I do find it appealing.

For New Articles Only

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?
  • The content added definitely improved the quality of the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I believe that the strengths are:
    • A strong improvement to the lead.
    • Providing unbiased information.
    • Overall, adding content that helps to improve the understanding of the article.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I believe that the article could be improved by:
    • Fixing some of the grammar in the caption of the image.
    • Maybe moving the image to be inline with the text? This could just be a personal preference by me.
    • Re-adding the citations so that it is easier to access the sources.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the lead was improved so that it provided more information. This information helped to explain the overall theme of the article. The structure is also very clear, as it leads directly into the next section. The content added is also neutral with no biased opinions, only displaying the facts. The addition of the image also helped me to understand the article. I believe that there could be some improvement with the image, in regards to placement and the grammatical issues in the caption. I also think that improvements could be made to the sources, as I was not able to access the original sources. All in all, the contributions to this article has helped to improve my understanding of the topic.