User:Allanhomes/Drosophila/Zachwherrmann 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

 * BIOSTUDENT2020 (Kaitlyn Seitz
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BioStudent2020/sandbox?

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been adjusted to be more clear and concise. Better grammatically but no new information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, maybe remove the part that says "also" so it sounds more like a topic sentence statement.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * this group is not focusing on the lead section of the article. Y'all could touch it up if you wanted because it's a little barebones
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no, there is lots of niche information not addressed in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * very concise, does not reference themes of research within the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes updated studies from the original research references in article
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, these are the most recent studies
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * need to trim down amount used from study source.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * no.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, good use of scientific language. Don't be afraid to have concise sentences.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, very scientific and appropriate.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * not sure what this means, Mostly just data and factual information being updated in this segment of the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, no bias in the flies.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes! Make sure the journal is accessible for non UPS students but I think it is!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Only one source used with multiple sources within the source to use for expansion. All seem very legitimate as they were used in the journal.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Range of less current sources used from within the current source so It is appropriate usage.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * no, very science focused.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links work but no citations created yet.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * good start! Need to paraphrase less.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Good grammar and spelling.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Organization is greatly improved.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no images added but I think there could be room for one!
 * 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 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?
 * yes, valuable information you are adding!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Very scientific and recent.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * less paraphrasing and more citations.

Overall evaluation
VERY NICE!