User:Katlynheneghan/Teratology/Michellwww Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

- I think these peer reviews ask a lot for just sentences of added work

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Katlynheneghan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Katlynheneghan/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes, the lead was updated and now it flows a lot better
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, extremely concise and to the point without missing any unnecessary information
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes, her few sentences provide description of teratogens and give a good definition of what they are.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes, this is the whole point. Her information is new and was very much needed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content, though only a few sentences, is very relevant to the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I can't see the references in the sandbox, and I'm suggesting that Katlyn include them.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content is relevant and belongs on the teratogen page.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, the added information is neutral and does not give any bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, nothing seems biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no view is under or over expressed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, katlyn does not seem to try to persuade a reader to do or think anything, and she is very level headed.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I can't see the references in the sandbox, I would recommend adding them in at least when you publish/edit the teratogen page.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I can't see the references in the sandbox.
 * Are the sources current?
 * I can't see the references in the sandbox.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I can't see the references in the sandbox.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, very concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no, katlyn would never.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, very.


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes, extremely. The article is a lot more complete and flows very well
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * they are very concise, to the point, and the sentences are packed with valuable information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * not sure, its pretty good already.

Overall evaluation
Suggestions:

Katlyn, you should integrate the information you have about neural crest cells into the blurb about where someone else wrote about NCC’s. I think you have valuable information written that isn't on the teratogen wiki page yet.

I would also add links to your sentences to make it easier for people to navigate throughout wikipedia.

Also making sure your statistics are up to date is important before publishing is important.