User:Lilmisnicole/Retraction in academic publishing/Dmath1117 Peer Review

General info
Viri0831, Lilmisnicole
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Lilmisnicole/Retraction in academic publishing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Retraction in academic publishing:

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? YES
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? YES
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? THE LEAD IS CONCISE AND TO THE POINT

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? YES
 * Is the content added up-to-date? SOME OF THE CITATIONS DON'T INDICATE A TIME PERIOD BUT FROM THE ONE I COULD SEE IT WAS DATED AT 2016 SO POTENTIALLY THERE IS SOME ROOM FOR IMPROVMENT THERE.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? WIKIPEDIA SUGGESTS THE DATES FOR THE CITATIONS TO BE FOUND
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? THIS ADDITION TO THE CONCEPT OF RETRACTIONS ADDRESSES A METHOD THAT IS NOT COMMON

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? THERE IS NO SENSE OF BIAS AND SEEMS NEUTRAL
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? SEEMS NEUTRAL
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? NO
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NO

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? YES
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) YES THEY ALSO PROVIDE QUOTATIONS FROM WITHIN THE CITATIONS THAT FURTHER THE POINT THEY ARE DRIVING
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? YES
 * Are the sources current? YES THEY ARE CURRENT EVEN UP TO 2023
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? YES THE SOURCES ARE WRITTEN BY A DIVERSE SPECTRUM OF AUTHORS
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I THINK THE CITATIONS USED ARE ADEQUATE AND MEET THE GUIDELINES
 * 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? THE CONTENT IS CLEAR AND TO THE POINT
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? NO TO MY KNOWLEDGE
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? THERE SEEMS TO BE ONE MAJOR TOPIC THEY CHOOSE TO DISCUSS SO YES ITS WELL ORGANIZED

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? THEY HAVE NO PHOTOS
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NO IMAGES PRESENT
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NO IMAGES PRESENT

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? IT DOES PROVIDE A LIST OF SOURCES AND CITATIONS
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? IT REPRESENTS THE NECESSARY AMOUNTS OF SOURCES
 * 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? THE ARTICLE CONTAINS A FEW ADDITIONS TO THE OVERALL ORIGINAL ARTICLE SO THIS PART DOESNT SEEM TO APPLY
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? YES IT DOES LINK TO OTHER ARTICLES

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I THINK IT DRIVES A POINT THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE AS IT PERTAINS TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF RETRACTION
 * What are the strengths of the content added? IT PROVIDES THE EXAMPLE OF SELF RETRACTION AND THE REASONS WHY A SCIENTIST WOULD CONSIDER THESE IDEAS INSTEAD OF BEING LABELED AS A COMPLETE LIAR.
 * How can the content added be improved? IF ANYTHING CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE IT WOULD BE MAYBE PROVIDING MORE EXAMPLES ON SELF RETRACTIONS AND ITS BENEFITS TO SOCIETY. MAYBE EVEN INCLUDE FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS ON WHY A SCIENTISTS SHOULD CONSIDER SELF RETRACTION.