User:Kasarlo/Genetically modified animal/PinguiculaRK 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? Kasarlo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Genetically modified animal

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No - no new content added
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It fails to provide more description into the sections of the article. Also, the second sentence: "... the number close to entering the market remains small." A 2013 review paper was used as a reference. This may be need to be looked into to reflect the current, and a secondary citation could be added. The presence of commercial GMO animals is different than in 2013. It's prevalence is increasing.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It seems skeletal.

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? Axolotls (I love axolotls... I demand to see axolotls. Haha!) IACUC. Current world views of GM animals. and I hate to say it... PETA. Maybe the last three can go into a new Ethics section? ***** maybe look at the Wiki article for GMOs. You can see their content, and it may give you some ideas.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It appears neutral... it may be biased for GM animals because of the lack of ethics, animal organizations, etc.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Ethics of GM animals. World views of GM animals. Consumer food concerns (more can be said). Many of the specific animals were underrepresented. You can make heck of edits in those sections. (fyi, I love axolotls...)
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? To a completely unbiased person, it may actually paint too good of a picture... because I didn't see a lot of ethics or concerns of GM animals.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In the main article, there are some that only present with 1 reference source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think one could find more on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes - there was a lot of 2018 publications, and I think 2 2019s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't notice any while skimming
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No added content
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No added nontent
 * How can the content added be improved? No added content