User:Allanhomes/Drosophila/Sthomas10 Peer Review

Peer review
Ben's peer review

General info
Talks about how they are utilized due to fast reproduction. They express Queer behaviors, and attempt to mate with members of the same sex.

Lead
Guiding questions:

The lead for this topic is well written, clear, and establishes a baseline for the information in the article. It is neutral.

Content
Guiding questions:

The info being added is the fruitless gene, which enables some fruit flies to participate in Queer sexual activity. Relevant, and improving content gap.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Tone and balance evaluation
Content is neutral, however Alanna is adding more information about a topic stated but not explained.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are bountiful sources, and all sources are backed by scientific venture. Many big brain scientists have partaken in this article.

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?

Organization evaluation
It 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?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
She does not plan on adding images.

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
The new data will be beneficial, it will add new depth into the article, as well as including new topics to be discussed in science.

Overall evaluation
I think she's on the right track! Once I see the work I'll truly know, but so far so good!