User:Wikisabella/Epigenetics/Kukam001 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? (provide username)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wikisabella/Epigenetics

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it was been updated and edited.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes they do
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes the lead presents new information
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content is about epigenetic
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes most of the sources cited are up to date
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some of the sources are not used in the text however they are relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It is not bias information it is just facts.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The view points are some where in between.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The information presented presents understanding and knowledge of a difficult topic and informs on what it is.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
• Are the sources current? fairly current
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes they do

Organization

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? yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
• Are images well-captioned? no images present to caption
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? there are no images
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no

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? yes it does
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The source list is fairly minimal
• 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? not really
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes they do

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it does
• What are the strengths of the content added? It gives specifics about how epigenetic is involved in many aspects of development such as aging
• How can the content added be improved? Maybe some images could be added?