User:KBednarik/Human genome /Jasmin Johnson 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? Karen Bednarik
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KBednarik/Human genome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Needs to include a brief description of the article's major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

==== Lead evaluation: The lead was update to reflect the new content added by Karen. The lead included an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead does need a brief description of the articles major sections added. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Needs to include a brief description of the articles major sections. Add titles to each section so I can differentiate which section is which.

==== Content evaluation: The content added is relevant to the topic. The content is added up-to-date. There needs to include a brief description of the articles major sections (not included in the draft, included in the original article). Add title to each section so it is clear to differentiate which section is which and where the additional information was added. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. It would be more clear to know what is under or overrepresented if it was clear where the information was added and if titles were provided for each section (in the draft).
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

==== Tone and balance evaluation: The content is added neutral. There are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There viewpoints are not over or underrepresented. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position of away from another. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, 2016-2020.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

==== Sources and references evaluation: The new content added is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough and they do reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current (2016-2020). The links are provided and works well. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and easy to read, I would just like to know under which section information was added. Maybe it would be more clear once the final article is published.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? According to the draft, it is broken down into sections but titles should have been provided. I assume they are provided on the original article.

==== Organization evaluation: The content is concise and easy to read, I just would like to know under which section information was added. Maybe it would be more clear once article is published. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. According to the draft, it is broken down into sections but titles should have been provided. I assumer they are provided in the original article. ====

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? A chart is provided that enhances the understanding. Karen did a great job adding additional information to the chart.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

==== Images and media evaluation: A chart is provided which enhances the understanding. On the original article, images are provided that enhances the understanding as well. Karen did a great job adding additional information to the chart. The images are well-captioned. The images adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulation. The images are 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? Yes and the sources are dated back to 2016 with the most recent being 2020.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? Should include section headings on the draft.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

==== New Article Evaluation: There are 3 reliable secondary sources provided that meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. It does accurately represent available literature on the subject. Section headings should be included/added on the draft. Links to the sources are provided but maybe provide links to relatable sources to make it more discoverable. ====

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Karen did a great     job adding the genetic disorders along with providing the gene it effects.     The amount of information  she added to the chart in great detail is what impressed me. The different     diseases and disorders provided with the exact chromosome that is involved     within diseases and disorders was very informative. She also provided reliable and current sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe provide links to pages and the original articles of the diseases mentioned. It would be easier for someone to gain knowledge and more information on a specific disease if they happened to be doing a research project. Also, for plagiarism reasons.

==== Overall evaluation: The content added improved the overall quality of the article. Karen did a great    job adding the genetic disorders along with providing the gene it effects.     '''The amount of information  she added to the chart in great detail is what impressed me. The different diseases and disorders provided with the exact chromosome that is involved    within diseases and disorders was very informative. She also provided reliable and current sources. To improve, Maybe provide links to pages and the original articles of the diseases mentioned. It would be easier for someone to gain knowledge and more information on a specific disease if they happened to be doing a research project. Also, for plagiarism reasons.''' ==== Summary

'''The lead was update to reflect the new content added by Karen. The lead included an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead does need a brief description of the articles major sections added. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise. The content added is relevant to the topic. The content is added up-to-date. There needs to include a brief description of the articles major sections (not included in the draft, included in the original article). Add title to each section so it is clear to differentiate which section is which and where the additional information was added. The content is added neutral. There are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There viewpoints are not over or underrepresented. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position of away from another. The new content added is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough and they do reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current (2016-2020). The links are provided and works well. The content is concise and easy to read, I just would like to know under which section information was added. Maybe it would be more clear once article is published. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. According to the draft, it is broken down into sections but titles should have been provided. They are provided in the original article just not in the sandbox draft. A chart is provided which enhances the understanding. On the original article, images are provided that enhances the understanding as well. Karen did a great job adding additional information to the chart. The images are well-captioned. The images adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulation. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way. There are 3 reliable secondary sources provided that meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. It does accurately represent available literature on the subject. Section headings should be included/added on the draft. Links to the sources are provided but maybe provide links to relatable sources to make it more discoverable. The content added improved the overall quality of the article. Karen did a great job adding the genetic disorders along with providing the gene it effects. The amount of information she added to the chart in great detail is what impressed me. The different diseases and disorders provided with the exact chromosome that is involved    within diseases and disorders was very informative. She also provided reliable and current sources. To improve, Maybe provide links to pages and the original articles of the diseases mentioned. It would be easier for someone to gain knowledge and more information on a specific disease if they happened to be doing a research project. Also, for plagiarism reasons.'''

The 9 questions from oaks:

1.     Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic? '''Although, she provides the original article and revised article, it is not clear where the additional information she provided was added due to there being no titles/subheadings on the draft. I assume that it would be more clear once the article is published because subheadings are on the original article'''. The new content is relevant to the topic.

2. What does the article do well? Is    there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative. Karen did a great    job adding the genetic disorders along with providing the gene it effects.     '''The amount of information  she added to the chart in great detail is what impressed me. The different    diseases and disorders provided with the exact chromosome that is involved     within diseases and disorders was very informative.'''

3. What overall adjustments do you    suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the    article?

'''Maybe provide links to pages and the original articles of the diseases mentioned. It would be easier for someone to gain knowledge and more information on a specific disease if they happened to be doing a research project. Also, for plagiarism reasons.'''

4. Did you notice anything about the    article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.

I did not notice anything about the article that could be applicable to my article.

5. Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information? All new content is backed up by a reliable source.

6. Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work? The sources are fairly current, they all provide    dates 2016-2020.

7. Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.

No grammatical errors were found within the new content added.

8. Student authors are responsible    for all images on their page (even if not part of their revised subsection). Double check the original page to make sure images are acceptable and    clearly described. See associated tutorial to review Wiki image    requirements. Summarize your findings.

'''All images on the original page were acceptable and clearly described. Images provided was a graphical representation of the idealized human diploid karyotype, a diagram showing the number of base pairs, a pie chart of human genes categorized by function of the transcribed proteins, TSC and SNP distribution graph, knockouts and parent-relatedness graph, a pedigree displaying first cousin mating, and a hominin timeline.'''

9. Identify at least one additional    reference that you think may contribute to the article. Explain why you think this article would benefit from the new information. Be sure to    provide the reference in your write-up.

One additional reference that can contribute to the article is https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/disorders/. This article would benefit from the new information because it provides different gene disorders, it explains what causes the disorders and it also explains how chromosomes play a part in it.