User:Jules2992/Heritability of autism/Positive not popular pysch Peer Review

General info
Jules2922
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jules2992/Heritability_of_autism?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * Link to existing article Heritability of autism:

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, the added content is directly related to the topics of the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the editor is brining the article up to date, which it majorly needs.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are only a few revisions currently so there is missing content, but the editor does outline her plan for what edits need to be made and what info should be added.

Tone and Balance

 * The added content is neutral and does not appear to be biased. The editor noted the lack of discussion about recent research and plans to add new studies to the article.
 * Currently the published article does not give an unbiased viewpoint due to its lack of research.

Sources and References

 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, the editor notes that the article does not include recent and balanced research studies/sources
 * Are the sources current? No, but the editor is aware and planning to m ake the necessary revisions.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.) Maybe check out: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/19393806/2023/16/6 They released a new volume this month.

There are only a few minor revisions to the article so I do not have a plethora of things to comment on or provide suggestions for.

After reading your "personal opinions," it seems like you have a great sense of the direction you'd like to go with your future edits and additions. I believe the inclusion of more recent peer-reviewed secondary literature would be one of the best ways to strengthen your article. I also found the study you mentioned ("Advances in autism genetics: on threshold of a new neurobiology") to be interesting and hope that you add more similar studies.