User:Pktka/Sexual differentiation/Mjsalnic 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? (PK Kaushik)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pktka/Sexual differentiation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? it has new an updated information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it includes a concise introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes, there is a description of major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead has information that might be included in their own section as the evolution of sex determination/differentiation systems. This is in case this part would be extended.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The added content gives the article more accurate and updated information.

The content might include more details about the pathways/mechanism of sexual differentiation.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the content sounds neutral. But, it might be good to develop a little more this paragraph: "Recent research has pointed to pathways of sexual differentiation being non-linear..." I think it might add a little piece of the history of the sexual differentiation understanding and how new information changes previous ideas would make the tone of the article more neutral rather than only states it as "non-linear". I mean, it would be good giving to that paragraph more context. By presenting previous and current theories about this topic.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Reference 3 and 4 are the same.

The content comes from a variety of sources, some are meta-analysis papers. The sources reflect the growth of the information and their changes over the time about this topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Overall, it is easy to understand. Maybe a quick review of the redaction would improve it more. In the brain differentiation section, the first paragraph is about that but the next two argue for a different idea. Those might have their own section or maybe try to find a more explicative name for the section.

We could try to keep the same terminology for the sex processes articles we are working on.

I will describe "sex reversal" as a process that happens in the initiation phase of the gonadal sex differentiation. Sex reversal is a redirection of sexual phenotype during embryonic development.

Sex change happens in the stabilization phase (when the gonad is already differentiated) due to the activation of an extrinsic pathway for change. Many reef fish can change sex during their adult lives.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think this was an article that needed an update and reference reviews. Now, the information is cited and reflects data from different sources.

I think the article might be improved by developing more some of the sections and including more information about sexual differentiation pathways.

I am not sure of the purpose of the section: Recent Changes in Understanding. I think if you want to present a novel or recent point of view you might create a section about theories of sexual differentiation or a chronology of the studies and their results until the most recent research that shows a more complex and complete view of this topic.

Also, as part of the neutrality, I think instead of repeating that is a non-linear process, you might just indicate the advances in the understanding of this topic and how those contrast with previous ideas. All past and recent studies have been improved our understanding of this process.

~