User:Emilyrd77/DNA shuffling/Emribo3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emilyrd77


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * DNA shuffling


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * DNA shuffling

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes, if anything I think it could be made a little shorter (ie remove the first sentence in the third paragraph)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A little detailed, see above suggestion

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes (a few sentences need citations, but this is indicated in the article)
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes - I checked the 4th source and the information matches.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Relatively - some older sources to refer to the history and this information is still relevant.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * N/A
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * The sources used cover the general breadth of the topic. Any information that could be added to the article can come from the sources already cited (see below for suggestions on additions).
 * 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?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, very informative/easy to understand
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Easy to follow with great sources. The image provides a great visual comparison. I think that the different sections go into enough detail.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It would be cool to include a new section where DNA shuffling is compared to the other techniques mentioned at the end of the lead and situations where one might be used over another. The source provided there seems like it would be a great place to get this information.