User:Samarthsbhatt/Genetic privacy/Ryleatrudeau 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? (provide username)
 * Samarthsbhatt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Samarthsbhatt/Genetic privacy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
My peer has not yet added any information to the article at hand, but the lead seems well-written in describing the general idea of genetic privacy and why people should care about it without necessarily going into too much detail. As of right now, it includes a brief synopsis of the topics covered in the article - however, if my peer plans to add more information, I think that the lead would indeed need to be updated to reflect this.

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
So far, the content on the page appears to be relevant to the topic. The concept of genetic privacy is a relatively new concern, so the sources appear to be pretty recent as well. I did not notice any specific information that was missing or did not belong on the page.

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
The tone of the article is neutral, however, I do think that the language could be updated in order to be more inclusive of more information. It is very basic, so it must be a relatively new article. Compared to other articles on Wikipedia, it is also short - I believe that there is a lot of room for improvement and making the article more balanced!

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
Most of the information appears to be backed up by citations, but could be re-worked through to double check that it is accurately representing the sources that are cited. Additionally, I noticed a few areas that were blatantly quoted and am curious to see if those could be re-phrased and properly cited.

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
The major content of the article has already been broken down into sections, but could definitely be added to.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images on this article so far - I do think that adding them would make this a lot more understandable for people who are reading the article and trying to actually wrap their minds around the idea of genetical privacy, though.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A; the article was pre-existing.

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
Overall, the article seems to be off to a good start. I look forward to seeing the content that can be added and the way it sounds after the citations have been re-visited!