User:Am2314/Dihybrid cross/Lillybiology Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Am2314


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Am2314/Dihybrid cross
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dihybrid cross
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dihybrid cross
 * Dihybrid cross

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has been changed by my peers and is reflected. There is additional information about the homozygous alleles needing to be dominant and the other homozygous recessive. There looks to be an additional sentence about the phenotypic ratio.

The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes the topic.

The lead does not include an overview of the major sections - there is an additional section about Gregor Mendel.

The lead covers information found in the sections.

The lead is concise.

The content added is relevant to the topic.

The content is up to date.

I think that the content belongs.

The topic does not write about/fill equity gaps.

The content added is neutral.

There are no bias claims.

There are no viewpoints under or overrepresented.

The content does not try to persuade.

There are only 3 references but they are up to date. These sources are better than the previous one. The additional two sources reflect what is available. The sources are accessible (through the Doane library) and clickable.

The content is well-written.

There are no images in the article.

Thinking about the conversation from previous class:

- Usage of distinct "trait" makes sense for the introduction. I thought of when you guys asked about whether or not to use trait or allele. In the section Expected genotype and phenotype ratios, allele is first mentioned "According to Mendel's statement, the relationship between alleles of both these loci is complete dominance". So maybe there should be clarification of allele = trait.