User:Cali0323/Forensic biology/Freshwater598 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cali0323


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cali0323/Forensic biology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Forensic biology

Lead
The lead was not updated

Yes the introductory sentence describes the article correctly

Yes the different types of Forensic biology are talked about in the lead and then further explained in the article

No the information on the lead is supported through the article

The lead is concise

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic of which they edited

I am no too certain because there is no citation for the information added, therefore I cannot check to see if it has been updated

There is a little content missing, such as some of the original citations (to fix this you can go down to the bottom and select insert, and then insert bibliography)

No this does not deal with the equity gap

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral and does not show any bias

No the claims are neutral

No all the viewpoints are represented equally

There is no persuasion in the added content

Sources and References
No the new content only has links to other web pages, and there is no direct citation for the content

N/A

The sources that are present are thorough

N/A

Organization
The content added, sounds a little weird at the beginning of the sentence in the Forensic odontology section, maybe say, "can use Forensic odontology to....."

The content is well organized

Overall Impression
The article is good overall, with the section that was editing there was just the minor error that I pointed out, and maybe add a citation for this information. You should also go back and add in the previous citations from the article. Also a suggestion would be to figure out how to copy both charts correctly. :)