User:Dephiant08/Cyberbiosecurity/YuLinB Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) User:Dephiant08/Cyberbiosecurity/YuLinB Peer Review


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Cyberbiosecurity
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbiosecurity
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cyberbiosecurity

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

- Good introductory sentence that concisely and clearly described the cyberbiosecurity topic.

- Based on the Lead section, I would expect this article to discuss the objectives of cyberbiosecurity, its potential for malicious destruction, misuse, or exploitation at the interface of life sciences and digital worlds, and the system of measures to safeguard the bioeconomy. If my analysis is wrong, would suggest rewriting to reflect this article's major sections.

- The first section after the Lead is the "Cyberbiosecurity threats." Suggest the Lead include "threats" as part of the description of major sections.

Content

- The Cyberbiosecurity threats section adds relevant discussion to this Cyberbiosecurity topic. It continues to discuss the theme of the interaction and importance of cybersecurity and biosecurity.

- This topic is relevant and an emerging issue that will likely outpace policy. For this and other reasons, this page is important.

- As this article continues to develop and mature, it has the promise to address Wikipedia's equity gap(s).

Tone and Balance

- Thus far, the content appears neutral and not heavily biased toward any specific positions.

- As possible caution for my colleague/peer, this topic does have the potential to take a biased position given the ethics issues surrounding bio-sciences and the role bio-sciences can play in people's lives.

- At this point, I do not perceive the article is attempting to advocate one position or dissuade another.

Sources and References

- The sources listed in the Reference section appear to be relevant and credible with many being peer-reviewed.

- Sources appear current and represent publication dated over the past few years (2017-2020). As I am not familiar with how rapidly the Cyberbiosecurity field evolves, publications from the last few years seem reasonable.

- I tried to access several documents through the links - and was mostly successful. The first article (Peccoud, et al., 2018) required that I pay for the article - and I did not. It brings up a good question, do all the sources/references need to be available free to readers?

Organization

- I look forward to reading/reviewing more of this article as my colleague, Dephiant08, continues the research/writing.

- Well done on writing in clear, easy-to-understand sentences.

New Article

- Good start on the list of sources.

- This article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements based on my initial research.

- Thus far, this article follows the pattern of other similar articles.