User:Camp8120/Rex mutation/Prad8960 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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

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.)

Lead:

The changes made have headers that separate the information about varying topics on the rex mutation. The first topic for example is about rex cats and the leading sentence clearly states quick information that an individual might look for which is the most recognized rex breeds. That one sentence definitely does not give a concise idea for the whole article topic but does provide easy access for the most repeatedly searched information. I believe that the lead should be a little more brief or vague in order to give a better understanding of the article as a whole. It includes only cat breeds, so possibly before the section on rex cats, there can be a lead section discussing overall rex breeds and mention any animal breed impacted by the rex genetic. The lead does a good job of discussing only what is important and does not stray away from the topic or talk about anything unnecessary.

Content:The content added is very relevant to the topic. It is clear that it discusses the genetic mutation in various species. It also discusses the mutation in various genetic types that allows the reader to differentiate and have the information to distinguish them. In order to analyze whether the content is up to date, it is vital to also consider the topic. When looking into a topic like rex genetics, it could be possible that every year, new information does not continue to come out. Due to this, I took a look at the references and saw that the latest reference is from 2013. Although that is 10 years ago, it could just be that after 2013, there has not been any significant data or findings published. In terms of content missing, I think it would be useful for images to be added which would be able to help the reader understand the differences in the varying species and how the mutation impacts them in their different ways.

Tone and Balance:I believe that the content is fairly neutral with the main purpose of wanting to bring awareness to this mutation that impacts various species. It is evident that the information added is to inform the reader about accurate information and not spread false information when an individual wants to learn about this genetic mutation that impacts animals. It is hard to say that there is a biased perspective on this topic but the individual definitely takes a stance on wanting to make the detrimental impacts clear as well. I think the individual does a good job of making it clear that from this genetic mutation, there are both non detrimental and detrimental issues that impact the species affected. I think the viewpoint of this mutation being harmful and non-harmful are not equal, however, this could simply be because the mutation is not harmful to many species. Overall, the changes made discuss in great detail how the mutation impacts the fur.

Sources and References:

All the sources used are peer reviewed journal articles that provide reliable information and there are no resources from untrustworthy websites used. When looking at the sources, it is evident that the information found comes from the sources and is accurate and reliable. Some of the sources seem to be dated further back so I suggest finding potential sources that are more recent with newer information. This would mean that the sources are not current as there could be newer information published with updated data. When looking at the authors, they come from a diverse spectrum since the research for this particular topic is dated back to the 1970’s. This would mean that any research done after this date may have used this as foundation knowledge to bounce off of. I suggest finding references that contain a good balance of primary and secondary information. All the links seem to be working!