User:Jtagosto/Carlos D. Bustamante/Aeburtner 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?

Jtagosto


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Jtagosto/Carlos D. Bustamante

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
The lead of the existing article is only one sentence. The edit that my peer is proposing expands upon that in a thorough but not exhaustive way. I do think that the article lead could use some more detailed information about the different sections of the article. At least stating some basics from each section, even if it will be mentioned again, can help readers know that they can find what they're looking for in the article just by reading the introduction.

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?

Content evaluation
The content in the users sandbox is relevant and helpful to understanding the significance of the subject's research. The information seems to be up to date as the sources cited are relatively recent. Something I do think would be helpful would be adding internal links to things like "Y-chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial eve" if such articles are available and if they are not adding a few words about what those things are.

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
The tone is neutral and all of the data seems to be fairly and equally represented. None of the new additions proposed seem biased to me.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are only two new sources provided, but I believe this matches the amount of information added. The links to both sources work and they are both reasonably current and thorough.

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
The content is easy to understand while at the same time providing the necessary information. I do think the content is well organized and fits the current article/adds new sections where necessary. I would recommend the main article be edited for grammatical clarity. There some sentences that are not technically wrong but are not the most clear in the main article.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The new edits do not currently contain any visual media, nor does the current article. I would recommend adding photos, if nothing else a photo of the article subject, to enhance the information provided.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a New Article

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
Yes, the article will be more complete once the suggested edits are added. The content provides information about the significance of the subject's research, which I think is crucial to understanding the relevance of the subject. I think adding even more information about the subject's research would be helpful as well.