User:Journee Williams/Fraser syndrome/Annasweetland 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? Journee Williams
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Journee Williams/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * You don't make any changes to the lead (at least I don't think), but you do mention potentially adding some subsections which I totally agree seems necessary. It seems like whoever wrote this article is just summarizing like multiple studies but not really building off of those studies? Like there's no analysis, so it's just like reading summary after summary with very little transition (especially in the molecular genetics section). So I totally think adding some new leads or new subsections is a good move.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * I think the content you plan to add like adding the term "intersex" and taking out the usages of "malformation" are very up-to-date edits to make. Like I know that's not what that question is asking, but I think you're edits in that respect are helping this article to be more "politically correct" (I hate that label but I couldn't think of another one). Like I think you're editing the language to be much better suited for present day society.
 * I don't know how much you're willing to change, I think your three proposed edits are already going to drastically improve this article, but I guess another edit I have for the content is that it's not like nice to read. It's not concise. Like it's very lengthy, and the previous author of this article maintained a lot of the same scientific language, so for the everyday reader who doesn't have a lot of biology background knowledge but just wants to learn about Fraser Syndrome might have trouble comprehending the content. So maybe rephrasing some of the sentences might be helpful? (that being said though, that's a lot of work and if I were doing this article I probably wouldn't want to undertake that task, so like I said what you're adding to it already is really good!).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Like you seemed to have noticed, the use of "malformation" has kind of a negative undertone and I think that might be problematic? I don't know some of the language used in the article (even "abnormalities") definitely feels like it might have a negative or judgmental tone, idk I'm just in a Sociology of Disability course right now so we like talk a lot about how descriptive words like that for the disabled population are oppressive or insulting. So your decision to change that is super good!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * Yeah the sources are fairly recent. It seems like there's one from the 80s but because other studies are referenced that are more recent I think it balances out.
 * the links I clicked seem to work :)
 * Also side note: I can't believe that whoever wrote this article on Wiki didn't include citations for any of the studies they referenced. Like the fact that that entire section on molecular genetics doesn't have a single citation is insane when it's literally just talking about specific experiments verbatim.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * I think the current article is definitely not concise and is uneasy to read, but you mentioned in your contributions that you'd maybe break it up a bit which I think is the right move.

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


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

For New Articles Only
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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * I think the content you add will definitely improve the overall quality of this article, like substantially. Even just putting in the citations you created, like that's going to make it so much better.
 * Strengths: fixed citations, recognizes how the current structure is difficult to read and plans to reconstruct it, noticing and fixing some terminology that may need updating
 * Improvement: like I said above, maybe in addition to breaking some of the sections up, adding some analysis sentences or just sentences summarizing the studies in words that are easy to understand and not super scientific may be helpful (but again, you totally don't need to do that and could leave that for the next editor).