User:BlakeForrest/Zygote/LaurenBiology Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BlakeForrest


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlakeForrest/Zygote?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Zygote

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Blake,

Overall I think the additions you made to your original Wikipedia article were great and provided the reader with appropriate additional information pertaining to the zygote. For my feedback, I will address some of the peer review questions given to us based on the lead, content, tone, and sources/ references.

Lead:

Within the lead section, one suggestion that I would have would be to add a brief statement regarding your new addition of infertility and IVF. This would benefit the reader as it immediately makes them aware that they can find information on those topics within your article. Although the original article provided a pretty decent lead section, I think it falls short in detailing all the respective sections in your article. For instance, there is no specific mention of the zygote in fungi, plants, protozoa, and other species; however, these sections are contained in the article. As such, I think an overall reworking of the lead section would benefit the reader in understanding the content of the article in its entirety.

Content:

With regards to the content that you have added to this article, overall you did a really great job. The addition of infertility and IVF is relevant to the topic of your article and offers the reader a broader depth of information on the zygote. Furthermore, since infertility can be the result of problems with the zygote, this is also applicable to your article. In terms of content that doesn't belong there, there were a few redundancies in the additions to the zygote portion of your article. Some of the information you had added was summarized previously in the article or you had previously added the information yourself such as “The daughter cells are called diploid cells and are a replica of chromosomes from the mother and father.” and “The daughter cells resulting from mitosis are called diploid cells means they contain a chromosomes from both the mother and father….”. These small changes will make your article more clear and concise which I think would better aid the reader in understanding the content. Overall, however, the content that you added to your article was very good and informative.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of your additions was very good, as the majority of the content added was presented in a neutral manner. However, one of the additions I would suggest for the infertility and IVF section would be to include the causative factors of infertility. Although you mention that it results in problems with the function/ formation of the zygote it would be useful for the reader to understand the ways infertility can occur (such as the genetic and lifestyle factors for example). This would ensure the reader of your article is receiving all the information surrounding your topic in an easy-to-source location. Furthermore, I think your article would benefit from a brief discussion on dizygotic twins (fraternal) as you had mentioned identical twins within your additions. In terms of overrepresentation or underrepresentation of information, I do not believe your original article (prior to your additions) did a very good job of balancing the information on this topic. The human zygote is disproportionately represented in comparison to fungi, plants, protozoa, and other species. I think your article severely benefitted from your additions and would further be bolstered through some additions to these sections as well.

Sources and References:

I was able to take a look at the references you contributed to this article, and I think they are applicable and useful for this topic as well as for the sections you added. I had also noticed that your resources contain a diverse spectrum of authors, especially the source pertaining to identical twins. One of the biggest things I noticed within your additions, however, was a lack of in-text citations. Some of the information that you had cited as being reflected in a singular source, did not contain the information in that section. Thus, I think it would be beneficial to your overall article if you added more in-text citations that pertain to specific statements in your section. With regards to your sources and referencing overall however, the sources you used were great, I would just refer to them more frequently throughout your article.

General feedback:

For my general feedback I will be basing it off of the requirements for this assignment, which were to add 500 words of new text, 1 new image, and 3 new references. Overall, you did a great job at meeting all of these requirements as you have provided a substantial amount of new information to your article along with 4 additional resources. Furthermore, the image you provided of the amoeba cell provides the reader with a beneficial visual aid for understanding the protozoa section of this article. If I had to make an overall suggestion I would add an image for your specific addition on infertility and IVF to break up the article a little more. Overall, great work on this Wikipedia article Blake, you definitely made it look much better than it did before and provided new, valuable information to the article.