User:Jules2992/Heritability of autism/PsychgirlTYTY Peer Review

General info
(Jules2992) Heritability of Autism
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Editing User:Jules2992/Heritability of autism - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Heritability of autism - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead is updated by the new editor of the article. The lead is clear and concise. It provides a good opening for all of the other subplots within the article. I love that the editor decided to give more information in the lead due to some of the information being from 2010.

Content:

The content is up to date. The editor took the time and effort to improve the information by researching more information from over the year 2010. I like that the content has good explanations, nice bullet points, and good organization. It is very easy to follow and see what the message is being conveyed. It does deal with the fact that Autism can only be 30%-40% by genetics. The other percentage has a gap that needs to be discovered or maybe looked at through research.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is very neutral with content that is not heavily biased. I feel that the editor truly wanted to be descriptive and not persuasive. In the article the words are chosen very carefully to go along with the theme of being informative. The viewpoints are mostly overrepresented as the editor focuses on specific key points related to Autism. Those points are the main theme of the article and are clearly addressed as you read.

Sources and References:

The Sources are very diverse and from different kinds of places. The links are working properly that if you click on them it takes you to another page with the information. The editor did a good job finding a lot of sources. However, my suggestion would be to go back and see if they are in tune with the laws of Wiki Edu. Sometimes we are tempted to use a primary source. I need to check my article and make a lot of edits.

Organization:

The article is very easy to read and follow along. The organization is very detailed and catches the attention of the user. My suggestion would be to see if any of the information can be summarized in a way that is not so lengthy. Due to the fact that this generation has a short attention span. Otherwise, the editor really brought the research to life the way they revised this article.

Overall Impressions:'

First, I would like to say a great job! I feel that the content is very well done and concise. I wish that I could give more help to find secondary sources, but I need help myself. My suggestions would be to recheck that issue, go back for grammar issues if any, check to see if it information can be cut, and try to find more recent articles. However, ultimately this article was very good, and the effort is shown well. ￼