User:Millager/Human genetic clustering/Impactfulmatter Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Millager


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

This section was good. It was brief, but it didn't leave out any important information. I recommend at one point linking to the cluster analysis wikipedia page so that people don't have to wonder what exactly it is. Another option is to include a brief (like one sentence) summary of cluster analysis and cluster studies. One sentence that could be a little confusing is the sentence "Humans tend to cluster together by geographic location..." That sentence could be interpreted as humans coming together by geographic ancestry as opposed to humans being clustered together by geographic ancestry, if that makes sense. Based off of the guiding questions, it did not seem like there was a brief description of the sections that would be included in article. This could be as simple as using the first sentence from the sub-sections as brief descriptions.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic and explains the topic well.

Genetic Clustering Algorithms and Methods

Both the model based clustering section and multidimensional summary statistics were good. Similarly to the lead section, they were concise without leaving information out. You also did a good job with including the limitations of these algorithms and methods. I will say with the caveats and limitations section it did seem a little vague. That section could go a little more in depth about what what some limitations are for both methods. I would pull on some of the information we learned in class about some limitations of these methods. One area where more information could be useful is the input of sample size.

Notable Applications to human genetic data

I know this section was trying to be concise but the lead paragraph in this section felt like there was some information that was lacking. Where this is most apparent is in the sentence "These early HGDP studies..." It felt like there was more information that was needed to fully understand what was being discussed. I did like how you included the various studies that had been done since 2002. The way that sections was structured was also beneficial where the relevant information was shared without having to read a wall of text.

Genetic Clustering and Race

I thought this section was really good. It was in depth enough to gather relevant information, but it wasn't so long that someone could easily lose interest.

Tone and Balance

Throughout the entire article, an academic voice was present and clear.

Overall Impressions

This was a good article. It provided relevant information on a somewhat difficult topic in a palatable way. There were a few areas that were mentioned above where some more explanation could strengthen the article, but overall it was good. It was concise and informative. I wasn't sure if this was an edit to an existing article since I couldn't find any current articles or if this was a new one.