User:Zhifanfu/He Jiankui/Susususushi 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Zhifanfu

Link to draft you're reviewing: He_Jiankui_affair#Ethical_controversies
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): He Jiankui affair

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

I check edit history and know that you have not added any new content to the lead, so my following feedback is just a suggestion. Although the current version of lead has mentioned the existence of ethical controversies, the lead still lacks a short sentence summary of all aspects of ethical controversies you added. If you can add a summary sentence in the last paragraph of the lead that captures all main ideas of your additions, I believe it will be easier for readers to know what they should expect from your section.

Content[edit]

First of all, I would like to express my personal admiration for your ability to retrieve so many different pieces of knowledge and merge them into a coherent paragraph. Each paragraph of your content discusses something different and It's organization very clear. By discussing the ideas put forward by an association/individual in one paragraph, you subtly avoid the problem of information being too concentrated in one paragraph.

Moreover, the neutrality of the article is very clear. It's hard for me to form an immediate conclusion while reading. Because even if you're mainly talking about why genome manipulation is unethical, you're still discussing the different ideas that several organizations/individuals respectively have about a problem. Even for similar standpoints, your discussion also reveals different reasons (e.g. regulation act,drawbacks,etc) why people condemn genome manipulation as immoral behavior.

Organization[edit]

There are 2 main organization problem I noticed when reading

Your "Ethics of genome manipulation" and "violation of medical-ethic values" section are highly similar. My understanding is that you think that one section will discuss only the ethics of gene editing, and the other section will discuss what ethical principles already exist in medicine get violated. However, in fact, after reading, I think both parts are discussing the moral controversy of gene editing and shouldn’t break into two different parts. The violation of medical ethical values is still a reason for the immorality of gene editing. However, I also cannot recommend that you just simply merge the two projects. My explanation for why these two parts cannot simply merge refer to the second suggestion below problem 2 discussion.
The discussion of "Misconstrual of science" does have something to do with the causes of the moral construal, but your content makes it seem to me more like a consequence of experiments than ethical controversies. For example, shortened life span and brain changes are 2 consequences you addressed but you didn’t discuss people’s different understanding on such outcomes. So, I think you should move this part into “Consequences” as a supplement to the original discussion. However, if you move this section, the remaining sections will look extremely unbalanced. There are two sections that talk about something similar. Only “Failure to publish in peer review journals” part discuss a different perspective. So, I think you may want to find a way reorganize your content and don’t underestimate the “peer review journals” part. Let the content be more organized, merge some similar content, but still keep content well balanced can be you next step!

Sources and References[edit]

I think you did a really good job of choosing your references. Wikipedia emphasize the need for data to be up to date in science area to minimize bias and information inconsistency. The references you choose should be in 2020 or 2021. There are a few relatively old references, but they are from around 2017. So, considering the age of the references, I think you've made a very careful choice. Also, I have checked the sources you have chosen and none of them have issues of using predatory or untrustworthy sources.

In addition to that, one another good pattern I've noticed about you is that the scholarly articles in the medical field often faced changes of idea. Some research result may get disproved or proven to have limitations after years. You keep containing all changes one source have been made by authors themselves or others in your section. This adds a lot of credibility to your article.