User:Carla R2D2/Genetic variation/Paola.Franco-Negron 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? Carla R2D2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Carla R2D2/Genetic variation

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
Every information included on the lead is on the article, is very concise and has been updated by the user i'm reviewing. Include a brief sentence describing the topic and at the end has a information about other themes that will be explain on the article. I think the lead is great, with the correct information and references, the user added short sentences. However, those sentences were very necessary to explain better the topic and give a better introduction.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All about the content belongs to the topic, the content is explaining some of the terms that the user mentioned on the introductory paragraph. Some of the sub-themes are a little empty for example, the sub-theme of Measurement is very short and I think it could add a little more to it. However, the user added a good reference for the information what makes it reliable and correct.

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
The tone on the article is very neutral. The user presents different areas from the topic and explain them very well. It's not trying to persuade the reader or to over represent a point of view, is very neutral and complete with the information.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I checked some of the sources and they are very reliable and effective to the topic. All of them are with updated information from 2000 onward. Every new content is backed up with a citation of a good source.

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
The content is very organized, is divided on different sections that help the reader to understand better the topic. It don't have grammatical error or some words that are incorrectly. Is very clear on the information that provides.

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
The content already had some images with a description, so the user didn't add new ones.

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
The content is very intresting and the information added is very strong with good and reliable sources. The article has a great organization and a clear way to distribute the information to the reader. The strength of the article is on the citations. Every single information added had a citation, what makes the article and information very reliable. I think that the user could add a little more information on the sub-theme I mentioned before, but this doesn't affect the article too much. The information added is great.