User:Chloeolivia30/Nutritional genomics/Ezra Smith 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? User:Paulbrnt, User:Taryn.roundy, User:Chloeolivia30, User:Bucear
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Nutritional genomics

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes the lead has been updated by one user to add more history to the topic
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not quite, the lead includes the definition, but not really how it is applied or its uses
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, I am not sure what more could be added to it, however.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The "Introduction" Heading is a bit redundant I think, as the information found there would probably be best suited in the lead section. It is good info though!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Most sources used are within 10 years old, so you would think that a growing field would have more recent information
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is probably content missing because it is a new field, and I think the content on PKU doesn't fit in where it is located.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there are no underlying themes found

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all the sources look good
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, I think there should be more from 2015+
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think some work could be done on the sections. Either adding more information or having more sections for each idea.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, adding sources and giving additional information has improved the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good sources, and finding some new information
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Try to make the article have a better flow to it. And I would try to explain in even more detail, the article seems like it is only skimming the surface.