User:Deathstar00/Investigative genetic genealogy/TheBigGorilla Peer Review

= Deathstar00 Peer Review =

General info
Whose work are you reviewing?: Deathstar00

Link to the Sandbox draft you are reviewing: User:Deathstar00/Investigative genetic genealogy

Link to the current version of the article: Investigative genetic genealogy

Evaluate the drafted changes
Note: These comments are both a mix of talking about what live edits my Peer made to their article, and a general analysis of the article itself and what could be potentially added. All of the edits that my Peer made to their article were very substantial and helpful towards the development of this article, especially as they added a completely new section titled, "Field Applications". I am not really looking at their Sandbox as what they have listed within their Sandbox for their additions have already been made to the live article.

Lead:
Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?: ''Yes, the lead of the article is very informative. The lead article is well developed and gives the reader a good summary of what Investigative Genetic Genealogy is. My Peer did a good job of expanding upon it as the lead article was outdated as it contained statistics from September of 2021, and they updated it to include relevant data as of December of 2023.''

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?: ''The lead article does a good job at giving a summary of what Genetic Genealogy is and how it is used within investigations for catching criminals. The lead article could, however, benefit from including a quick rundown of other applications that it has such as how it can identify bodies that are unable to be identified through other means (Living Doe situations) from the newly added "Field Applications" section; as well as briefly touching on the complications that have arisen from the usage of Genetic Genealogy such as the privacy implications and controversy surrounding it. Adding these two pieces of info, even if briefly, will help cover the main topics of the article as that is what the lead section is meant to do, and it would result in showing readers who may just read the leads that there are positives (catching criminals/identifying bodies), and negatives (privacy complications and surrounding controversy) to Investigative Genetic Genealogy.''

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?: ''The lead paragraphs of the article act as to explain what Investigative Genetic Genealogy is, and its applications in catching criminals, instead of giving a brief summary of the article itself and its sections. I believe that the beginning paragraphs could be edited and split into two different sections; with the first focusing on what I.G.G. is, and either a second section dedicated to speaking about how it is used to catch criminals, or the information about the criminals could be combined with the "Field Applications" section. I think a lead paragraph could then be added that first briefly summarizes what I.G.G. is, then a brief rundown of its applications from criminal justice to identifying bodies, and then adding that there have been some complications/controversies in the past regarding I.G.G., as well as public concerns regarding privacy. The existing lead paragraph itself has valuable, informative information, however it would be best to separate it into its own section as it leans too heavily into just summarizing what I.G.G. is.''

Structure:
Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?: ''Currently, the structure of the article is organized very well and I do not see any reason as to change it. The article begins with its lead section summarizing what I.G.G. is and its applications in catching criminals, thus serving as a good introduction as it gives needed context to the reader. The lead is then followed up by the newly added "Field Applications" section from my Peer which serves to further inform the reader of other applications of I.G.G. The lead and F.A. sections serve as to inform what I.G.G. is, before delving into the complications and controversies that have arisen regarding the practice. The article is then ended off by talking about new potential for I.G.G. within the Government, which fits perfectly towards the end as most of the sections beforehand speak on Government involvement and interest regarding I.G.G. so the reader has already been given some forms of context before this final section.''

If the existing lead section were to be potentially split up into two different sections, then I believe that the structure should follow as: The new Lead paragraph, a section summarizing I.G.G., a section speaking on I.G.G's application in solving criminal cases, the Field Applications section, and so on and so forth continuing the original structure.

Note: Also, the "Privacy Implications" sub-heading shouldn't be underlined, and there are a few minor grammatical errors in the "Field Applications" section.

Content Added + References Added:
Is the content added relevant to the topic?: ''Yes, the edits made as well as the newly added references are relevant to the topic. The newly added "Field Applications" section is also relevant to the topic as it gives more information as to how I.G.G. can be used in fields other than criminal investigations.''

Is the content added neutral?: ''For the most part, yes; however, the beginning sentence of the F.A. section could be seen as slightly biased. The sentence seems as if it is trying to make a point as it states, "There are more uses to investigative forensic genealogy than just for cold cases...". I believe that the sentence could be slightly tweaked to say something along the lines of, "Investigative genetic genealogy has also been used for other situations not pertaining to criminal cases, such as solving cold cases or otherwise deemed "unsolvable" cases by law enforcement."''

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: ''Yes, all the new content and edits are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. Regarding the edits made to the lead section that updated information regarding criminal cases from Sept. of 2021, to Dec. of 2023, my Peer included a new reference/citation linking to a genealogy database website with the related information. For the F.A. section, my Peer included three new references to support their writing, with the first citation linking to another database website presumably showing the records of bodies identified through I.G.G. The second citation links to a U.S. Governmental website regarding Human Trafficking and and the applications of I.G.G., and the third citation is a U.S. DOJ Interim Policy document speaking on the usage of I.G.G. and DNA analysis. All of these newly added sources within the F.A. section support the newly added content.''

Images and Media:
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: ''Previously the article did not include any images, however, now there are two new images added by my Peer to the article. The first image is of a CDC scientist running some lab tests and is placed near the lead paragraph at the top of the article page; and the second image is of wildfires raging in a Californian neighborhood, placed within the F.A. section.''

''The wildfires image enhances the article as it is giving the readers a visual of where I.G.G. can be used, and that is in the identification of bodies. I.G.G. can identify victims of wildfires whose bodies may have been charred beyond the point of facial or dental analysis, thus requiring DNA testing to identify whom that person is. It fits well into the F.A. section as that section speaks on I.G.G. being used in body identification after natural disasters.''

''Regarding the CDC image, after looking at its file description on Wiki Commons, the image is captioned as a CDC scientist working with polio strains, and I feel that it is too "general" of a scientist related image for this article. It doesn't really enhance the article at all, nor is the original image itself related to I.G.G. either. I believe that a different image specifically pretraining to I.G.G. could be used.''

Are images well-captioned?: ''The wildfire image is well-captioned as it re-states the image's description from it's Wiki Commons description. However, for the CDC image it is captioned as "CDC Lab testing", and I believe that it could be captioned better as to explain the specifics of what the CDC scientist is testing, or have a new image entirely.''

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: ''The CDC image exists within the Public Domain as it is a work of the U.S. Federal Government as stated within its Wiki Commons description, so, yes, the image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Regarding the wildfires image, it too adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as not only was it uploaded on its original website before June of 2017 (where all images afterwards would not be freely licensed), but it is noted that the person who originally owned the image has waived all their rights under copyright law and made it Public Domain.''

Reliable Sources:
Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors: ''Regarding the reliability of the sources for this article, the majority of the sources are of news articles (The NYT, WP, TA, and the NYP), speaking on the usage of I.G.G., mainly pretraining to criminal cases, controversy, and news surrounding I.G.G.; and only a few of the sources are from dedicated genetic genealogy related websites, databases, Government, or website reports such as 23andme or ancestry.com. All statements and information within the article are backed up by these sources, and all the sources are related to the article at hand.''

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view: ''No, there are not a lot of statements attributed to a select majority of sources. Overall, there are 29 sources, with only 4 of the sources being used twice within the article.''

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!: ''The only unsourced statement I could really find is within the beginning paragraph of the "Direct-to-consumer companies" sub-section where there is an [examples needed] tag present. There is a citation next to the tag, presumably for the information within the paragraph, that takes you to a website where the information is locked behind making an account needing a relevant institution of which you are researching under, so the information present in the Wiki article cannot easily be verified from this source. I'd recommend my Peer to see if they can find another source that all can access in order to support this information, and if so, remove the [examples needed] tag and most likely the locked source.''

Final takeaways:
Is there anything from your review that impressed you?: ''I was most impressed by the addition of the "Field Applications" section. Given that I.G.G. can be used for so many different purposes, I was surprised when reading through old versions of the Wiki article that it only focused on I.G.G.'s use for catching criminals, instead of the other purposes listed by my Peer such as Living Doe situations and body identification. I feel that the F.A. section addition is very valuable to the article in listing relevant information for I.G.G.'s uses that weren't in the article beforehand.''

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? What is the most important thing the author could to do to improve the article?: ''I would suggest my Peer to apply some of the suggestions listed throughout this review, such as the lead section changes, improving the captioning of the CDC image or finding a new related image, and a few of the minor edits listed. I believe the most important change would be the restructuring of the lead section, as of right now it takes up a large section of the article and focuses too heavily on just what I.G.G. is rather than summarizing the key points of the article. I also would suggest my Peer to review the first paragraph of the "Direct-to-consumer companies" sub-section and do some research to see if they can find some extra sources to support the claims made by the courts, especially as the citation #18 link is locked behind creating an account and should most likely be removed.''

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article or vice versa?: As of right now I have not noticed anything that could be applicable to my own article, nor anything to theirs.