User:Jcleophat/Ethics of bioprinting/Montero.kayla 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? (Jcleophat)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ethics of bioprinting

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * From what I can see, the lead is not currently reflecting the new content that will be added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include an introductory section that is very accurate in describing what will be mentioned in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does include a few sentences on the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead is relevant to the article and does not contain extraneous information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead does its job- it stated the main topics of the article and provides preliminary insight. The lead could be a little bit more elaborate as it may be lacking some detail. After the ethics sentence the lead could be strengthened by including a sentence or two on human enhancement.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * No content has been added, except a citation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No content has been added, but the article material does appear to be relevant and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content has been added.

Content evaluation
Overall, there was not added content to be evaluated. However, the topic does spark interest and the material currently in the article is relevant and substantial for the article. Yet the article does appear to be in its early stages.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content in the article Is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article is still in its early stages so no topics have been over or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article as a whole is neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the article is neutral and since it is in its early stages only minimal information has been presented. After reading the article I felt informed and did not really feel swayed to assume a particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The article content is cited and seems to be supported by reliable information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources appear to be suitable for the literature of the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are primarily current
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, I clicked on several links and they worked.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are all relevant to the article and properly cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No content has been added, but overall, the article is well written and can be logically followed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * From my reading, the content does not have any spelling or syntax errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No content has been added, but the sub-sections in the article are effective in discussing the ethics of bio-printing.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized with supportive sections and content.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not have any images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images are included.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images are included.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images are included.

Images and media evaluation
While there is no media in the article, it would be amazing to include images and supportive visuals. For example, a diagram of bioprinters would be effective for readers.

For New Articles Only (ARTICLE IS NOT A NEW ARTICLE)
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?
 * No content has been added yet, however, the article is very well articulated for being in such an early stage.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Content will be added by my peer soon.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Added content should be supplemental to what is already in the article, it should be neutral and adding images would be very appealing to the article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is at a very early stage and missing added information. Once additional information is added, the article can be screened for visual appeal- through the addition of images, etc.