User:Amaner222/User:Amaner222/sandbox/JenniferZargote Peer Review

General info
Amaner222
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Amaner222/sandbox - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Gene pool - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review Lead In


 * Firstly, this article does a good job of being informative on the topic at hand.


 * I was impressed with the examples included, like the biophysicist from China.
 * However, a change I would make the author apply to the article is to go back and improve the grammar and punctuation, as this would improve the article by making it easier to read and understand.
 * The most important thing the author could do to improve the article is fix grammatical errors, and also eliminate the words "this article" and "we".
 * Something I noticed from this article that I could apply to my own is the examples that were included.

Article Lead Section


 * I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the article.
 * The lead reflects the most important information. the sections are organized in a sensible order, but the section "Gene pools in different animals" has an example about two girls, and it is not clear whether it is two human girls or animal
 * Each section's length is equal to the importance of the article.

Structure


 * All sections are organized well and in a sensible order


 * There are no sections that seem unnecessary, and nothing seems to be off-topic.
 * For the most part, all perspectives are represented, but a viewpoint that is missing in "Gene Pool Controversies" is the who. Who is raising these questions?
 * The article does not try to convince the reader to accept any particular point of view.

Neutral Content


 * I could not guess the perspective of the author; the article seems to be very neutral.
 * There are no words or phrases that don't feel neutral.
 * The only phrase that may seem like it is making claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people is "This article raises many questions".
 * This article does not focus too much on negative or positive information, it is neutral.

Reliable Sources


 * All statements in the article are connected to a reliable source, they all seem to be journal articles.
 * No statements lean too heavily on any one point of view.
 * Sources are presented accurately and there are no unsourced statements in the article

Reviewer Reflection


 * Include examples
 * include a lead
 * make sure all perspectives are represented