User:Brinaluvsrocks/Abiogenesis/HaskelleTW Peer Review

General info
Brinaluvsrocks
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Brinaluvsrocks/Abiogenesis:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Abiogenesis:

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)\

Peer Review Checklist:

Peer review
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Relevant and well written! Nothing distracted me and I was impressed with how well summarized these concepts were.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Overall it's neutral. The only thing that stood out was the "grain of salt" in the Heavy Late Bombardment section.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. The "Suitable geologic environments" section is balanced and well supported. It reflects current scientific understanding.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The sources support claims, but some links don't work. The "Woese, C R (1987-06). "Bacterial evolution". Microbiological Reviews." for example does not work. Any reference that says or "date=" needs to be edited.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * All the references I've been able to check are peer reviewed, reliable, and sufficiently neutral.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * There are some citations about LUCA and thermophilic organisms that are from from the 1987-1995, but if the information is still true today then it should be fine to use them. I'm just curious if those experiments or review papers have been updated significantly.

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Currently no. I don't think Sabrina has edited the Lead, Overview, or history section yet. I don't think the lead needs too much editing since Sabrina mostly added more information rather than completely change the topics mentioned in the Lead. Perhaps just add a paragraph summarizing her main contribution, the "Suitable Geologic Environments."
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes - it defines the term and the summarizes the current scientific ideas about abiogenesis.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes - it covers what the OoL field looks like today, the Miller-Urey experiment's importance, and LUCA. One thing to add would be the possible geological environments, or just more about geology evidence in general since it only briefly mentions evidence of life.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Relative to the length of the article, this is concise. Compared to other Wikipedia articles it's a long lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Very relevant. Sabrina added really well summarized information on the formation of Earth and it's evolution to habitable. The Late Heavy Bombardment section was needed, but she also discussed the issues with LHB theory which is not commonly mentioned. The information against deep-sea vent OoL was needed. The "Surface Bodies of Water" and "Temperate surface bodies of water" content was a great addition as well and very relevant to abiogenesis. I'm surprised those were left out of the initial article!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The majority of it is. Most articles added are from after 2010. The "Hot Springs" addition has an article from 1987, and the "Temperate surface bodies of waters" has papers from the 90s. If they're still accurate then I don't see any need to replace them, but maybe adding a newer article would be helpful as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. She covered the most relevant OoL environments and important mechanisms that led to a habitable Earth.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article cites several women and POC authors but it does not directly deal with equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. It provides a more balanced view of deep-sea hydrothermal vents and LUCA than the previous version of the article. The "grain of salt" line in the LHB paragraph may show some bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nothing is heavily biased, but maybe adding some issues with the Hot Springs and Pond hypothesis will balance it out since the deep-sea vents section has and extensive "challenges" section.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The hydrothermal vent paragraph is much longer than the other geological settings, but that may be needed since it's so popular. The original author of this section added a lot of information about this hypothesis, and Sabrina added the needed challenges, so now it's quite long. Although I think it's representative of how much research has gone into that theory.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The section with the most persuasion is the vents section, which Sabrina balanced out. I don't think there's any attempts to persuade in what Sabrina has written, but again adding some contrasting viewpoints to the other geological environments might be helpful.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the sources I checked agreed with what was written. I couldn't find anything cited incorrectly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources reflect the interdisciplinary nature of astrobiology and draws from several branches of science.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are articles from POC and women authors, however the lack of diversity is more reflective of the demographics of the astrobiology field.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * All of Sabrina's added sources are from peer-reviewed articles from reliable sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some of the links with " " and "date =" do not work. Most links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes! I was really impressed with the "emergence of habitable Earth" section in particular. It provided a well written but thorough overview. I thought everything made sense as someone with a science background. I think people with a general understanding of biology and earth science can understand this.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few spacing issues with the references. There shouldn't be a space between the period of a sentence and the reference number. This article uses American English, so "favoured" should instead be "favored," and "sulfide" instead of "sulphide," to give a few examples. Otherwise the grammar and spelling is good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Very organized - it follows the original organization of the article and adds relevant subsections to each major topic.

Images and Media
None added.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, Sabrina did a great job improving this article. Lots of needed information, nuance, and balance was added to the content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The "Emergence of a Habitable Earth" section has great information about the moon forming impact, evolution of the atmosphere, condensation of liquid oceans, plate tectonics, and LHB that wasn't previously stated. It provides crucial context to the formation of the Earth that is key to the astrobiology field.
 * The Hydrothermal Vents section was balanced and provides a more neutral summary of our current understanding.
 * The added sections on Temperate surface bodies of water was well researched and provides sufficient biological and geological context.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Balance out the other OoL geological environment with some "cons" to the hypothesis, but you don't need to add as much as the Hydrothermal vents hypothesis. Doing so would provide a more neutral tone, which Wikipedia prefers.