User:Neelkoladiya/Ethics of cloning/PinguiculaRK 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? Neelkoladiya
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ethics of cloning

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No content appears to be added (?) I don't know where to find this.
 * 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 - its not a good section overall
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It doesn't appear so.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed with a lack of references. I didn't see a formal section description of cloning, nor a definition present in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There was only two 2018, 1 2015, and a couple 2013 references. The content is not entirely up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The methodology of cloning. History of cloning. Benefits of cloning. More elaboration into cloning meat concerns. More elaboration of cloning in animals, their significance in consumerism and research. (Random... but you can talk about pet cloning. Haha!)
 * ** This was present in the lead... but it doesn't appear to be discussed later in the article:
 * Advocates support the development of therapeutic cloning in order to generate tissues and whole organs to treat patients who otherwise cannot obtain transplants, to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs, and to stave off the effects of aging. Advocates for reproductive cloning believe that parents who cannot otherwise procreate should have access to technology.
 * Opponents of cloning have concerns that technology is not yet developed enough to be safe, and that it could be prone to abuse, either in the form of clones raised as slaves, or leading to the generation of humans from whom organs and tissues would be harvested. Opponents have also raised concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with families and with society at large.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It appears to heavily emphasize religion only. The tone feels one-sided. I didn't feel fully educated on the ethics of cloning. The article made me want to go on google scholar or pubmed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The whole article needs revamped
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The methodology of cloning. History of cloning. Benefits of cloning. More elaboration into cloning meat concerns. More elaboration of cloning in animals, their significance in consumerism and research
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No content added by Neelkoladiya I dont think. It seems not to be completely neural.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No - the reference within the article needs a lot more work.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It doesn't appear so
 * Are the sources current? No
 * 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? No
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes - it could still be cleaned up some more.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? no content added ( I don't know how to find this out)
 * What are the strengths of the content added? no content added
 * How can the content added be improved? no content added