User:Lucieamidon/Quantum biology/Lucieamidon 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?
 * Audrey Buck, Doodleflip42
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Audrey Buck/Quantum biology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Only editing the Quantum Photosynthesis section.. Will you update lead to update changes in this section?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * N/A
 * Mentions photosynthesis as an application
 * 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?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I think that it is a good idea to add the other study. I think that the information added is good.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Sources are from 2010-2020 so yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I am a little bit confused by where your second bullet under "additions to the photosynthesis section" will go/what information is it supporting.
 * Also, your last bullet point could use some clarification if you are going to include that argument in your article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * It seems neutral to me.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I can tell.
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are four sources for the improvements to the article and an additional 50 sources on the original article so I think that there are enough sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes (2012-2018)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The names seem pretty diverse but it is hard to tell.
 * 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?
 * Changing the wording in your edits to the existing page was definitely helpful for comprehension. I think what you have now, before the additions, is easy to read and as long as you incorporate the additions in the same manner it will be good!
 * 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?
 * Not really, this might be helpful but I know that you guys are already just improving this one section so I am not sure this applies.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is a diagram that goes with the photosynthesis section in the original article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes! I think you guys did a good job of editing the existing article to be easier to understand and I think that the information that you added was almost all relevant to the section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I like the examples of studies that you add to the article because it expands the amount of information included in a cohesive way. I also think that the recent sources are great!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think just with some re-wording once you start to actually place the additions into the article to make it flow better would be good!