User:Lbucla88/Whole genome bisulfite sequencing/Whomtao Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lbucla88


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Whole genome bisulfite sequencing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The lead properly reflects the new content added by my peer. A lot more content has been added, and as such, the lead now better introduces the concept of whole genome bisulfite sequencing and its methods
 * The intro sentence is concise and introduces us into what whole genome bisulfite sequencing is.
 * The lead has a table of contents and a second paragraph that introduces us into some of the content of the articles
 * The lead does not include information not present in the article
 * The lead is concise

Content


 * All added content is relevant to the topic and very necessary for complete understanding of the topic
 * Content is up to date
 * No content does not belong
 * The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gap

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral and qualifies itself by addressing bias and technical limitations
 * There does not appear to by any heavy bias
 * There are no overrepresented viewpoints
 * Content does not attempt to persuade readers

Sources and References


 * Content is backed up by many sources
 * Checking the first 3 sources, content accurately reflects the sources content
 * Sources are thorough and current
 * Links work

Organization


 * Content is very well written, and very clear
 * Content does not contain grammar/spelling errors
 * Content is well organized, with multiple headers and subheaders

Images and Media


 * Images greatly assist in the understanding of the topic. Figure 1 summarizes the method of function. Figure 2 is a great visual example on what a sequencing system would look like.
 * Images are well captioned, including figure marking and clear explanations of what we are seeing
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images are laid out in a visually appealing way

Overall Impressions


 * The article is high quality and more complete, with even more sections talking about necessary content
 * The main strengths are definitely higher quality writing/organization, more available information compared to the original article, and non-biased content
 * To improve the article, some sections could be more concise (particularly history and applications sections)
 * its too long