User:Angela432/HeLa/Jc181maple 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been substantially cut down (and rightfully so). The lead's first sentence describes the entire topic fairly well and the accompanying description lays out the rest of the core details that the article discusses. However, a sentence should be added to mention the contamination problem accompanying the use of HeLa cells in research (considering that a decent chunk of the article is dedicated to the problem). Overall, this lead is much more concise than the previous one, cutting down on extraneous information and setting the stage with the most important information of the article.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic

Content added is relevant to the topic Second, content added is up to date but tends to focus more on the research done in the late 20th century. Some discussion about HeLa cell research in the context of the 21st century could be useful in the article. The content in places reads a little too technical - I'll talk about this more in the organization section.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Content added was largely neutral. Editors expanded upon both the medical contributions of research using HeLa cells but also added a controversy section to the article about the history of the debate of medical privacy around HeLa cells. Maintaining a neutral tone when creating the controversy section is especially laudable. Content added does not appear heavily biased in either direction or attempt to persuade the reader in a particular direction. The core recommendation from this perspective is just to add more details to the controversy section since it feels as if it skips from the 1950s to the present day too quickly.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Added content is somewhat backed up by secondary sources of information. While all added sources can be said to be reliable and current, many of the sources cited in the "Uses in Research" section are published articles in scientific journals and thus constitute primary sources.

And the links 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?

Organization evaluation
Content added is largely clear and easy to read. However, some of the sections in the "Uses in Research" section read very list-like and utilize a large amount of technical jargon. While the jargon terms are linked out to other wikipedia articles, a short description accompanying the term within the article would greatly improve ease of reading.

Content added is grammatically correct and 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
No images were added but the base article already contains all the images needed for the understanding of the topic in a visually appealing way. The images in the preexisting article are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Content added (and cutting down on the lead) has greatly improved the overall quality of the article. The new content expands both on the controversial parts of the use of HeLa cells as well as specific examples of how HeLa cells have been used in research, 2 fronts in which the previous article was sorely lacking. Recommendations are in the evaluations above.