User:Lilmeowmeow3161/Biological data/HanMiKC 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? Lilmeowmeow3161
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lilmeowmeow3161/Biological data

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?
 * No for history, yes for types of bio data
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but a part of it seems unwritten so it's not yet included rather than not present entirely
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The beginning sentence is good, but there needs to be an introduction into what sections you are going to cover in the article. You already list types of bio data in the lead, which is a section you wrote out, but you didn't talk about how you'd address the history. The lead is concise, but needs more details in the ones I mentioned above.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * There aren't really dates, and the only source cited is from 2006.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there seems to be information for one section missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Content evaluation
Since there is nothing written under the Types of Bio Data section, there is missing content for the meantime. While the information is relevant, there needs to be more specific dates to the claims made, for example, when were some of the leaps in bio data you mentioned? Are there any specific notable events? "Past decades" is a bit too general.

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?
 * Yes, there are underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is overall neutral, however, there is a mention about how scientists have had a debate about what is "alive". Because of this, there should be clarification of both arguments. What do some scientists define as "alive", and how do other scientists differ?

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?
 * No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No, it says that Adobe Flash needs to be downloaded. Might just be an issue for me though.

Sources and references evaluation
The one source listed is from 2006, so not the most up-to-date. The source does reflect the literature surrounding the topic, however there is only one. There should be more than 1 article to get the diverse spectrum of authors needed to fill the Wikipedia equity gaps.

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?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * unsure

Organization evaluation
There are only two sections, but only one is completed. If you are writing a new article, I might suggest trying to split the sections up with more detail. If you are simply adding to an existing one, then it's fine to keep the number of sections, but finishing the second section about the types of data would be ideal for the next round. There are no errors, and the content is understandable. There might need to be more specifics added, such as the ones I mentioned in earlier sections (i.e. perspectives about an issue, specific examples)

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
If you find an image necessary, then perhaps it would be useful. I don't think an image is necessary particularly, but you have control as the author.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is easy to understand and has a good level of writing for Wikipedia. The article does need to be finished, and the one completed sentence needs to provide more information in certain aspects to the claims made. The lead needs to include what else you are planning on talking about for the rest of the article (the mention of a history section is left out of the lead, for example).