User:PinguiculaRK/Synthetic biology/Kasarlo 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? PinguiculaRK
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Synthetic biology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has not been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is perhaps too concise and could be more descriptive.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead jumps right into a discussion about the decreasing cost of DNA synthesis and does not outline the article well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the information on the lowered cost of DNA synthesis not discussed elsewhere.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is overly detailed and not well organized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Recent discoveries are mentioned but not well explained.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * This article repeatedly refers to DNA synthesis when they mean sequencing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I feel the content is mostly neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * 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?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are many sources stitches together awkwardly
 * 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?
 * Not at all. This article lacks organization and coherency.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No but lots of awkwardly worded sentences.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No sections seem almost randomly thrown together.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, excellent images.
 * 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 the images are appealing.

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?
 * The article has lots of good content but is not complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * As far as strengths the article contains lots of factual information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This content needs to organized in a more understandable way.

Overall evaluation
Solid factual basis that needs to be expanded on and organized better.