User:Sh1539/Genetic discrimination/Kfreda Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Sh1539


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sh1539/Genetic discrimination
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Genetic discrimination

Lead
It doesn't appear that this group has proposed any changes to the lead section. The existing lead section includes an introductory sentence, a brief description of genetic discrimination, and seems to be suitable for the article. The only new section the authors are adding that might be helpful to add to the lead is the section on genetic discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Content
All of the content added is relevant to the topic of genetic discrimination and very up-to-date in terms of current circumstances regarding COVID-19 and the current state of direct-to-consumer testing. The added content also reflects Wikipedia's equity gaps by addressing genetic discrimination and race, which is only very briefly covered in the current version of the article.

Tone and Balance
I think while I agree with the claim that individuals with genetic pre-existing conditions should be prioritized, I think that the claim appears biased, especially without a citation. I get the point of including these claims to say that people with genetic pre-existing conditions were not only not prioritized but discriminated against, but I don't know that this article is the place to make the case for the former. I think the explanation of genetic discrimination with ventilators and limited supplies gets the point across. I think the DTC section did a particularly good job of representing the companies' motivations with neutrality.

Sources and References
You had a lot of sources so I didn't check all of them in depth but they look like they're from reputable and neutral sources and all of the links I tried were functional. (Also, did Meghan write Genetic and Disability Discrimination During COVID-19? It's really cool to see you bring what you're knowledgeable on/passionate about to Wikipedia.) There are a few sentences at the beginning of the second paragraph in the Genetic Discrimination During COVID-19 section that don't have sources and look like they need one, though I understand secondary sources are probably pretty hard to find given how current this topic is.

Organization
The organization largely fits within the existing organization of the article, which seems appropriate. The organization within the sections also follows a logical order. The sections are all a bit long, so I might recommend editing them down or coming up with further subtopics to break the larger sections up a bit. There is a one incomplete sentence I noticed ("Individuals with co-morbidities, such as pre-existing conditions like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, immunocompromised conditions, obesity, etc."). I'm not sure what the connection is supposed to be between genetic discrimination and vaccine passports, though I do think there is a connection to be made regarding genetic conditions and vaccine eligibility. The commas in this part of the sentence "research done by geneticist Guido Barujani, looking at 109 genetic markers across 16 populations, "does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome"" are kind of confusing and I don't think they're necessary. There is also some inconsistency regarding the superscript for in-text citations going before or after the sentence punctuation, but otherwise the writing was clear and free of spelling and grammatical errors.

Overall Impressions
Overall, I think that the authors did a good job of identifying content gaps and making the article more up-to-date considering the changes to the operation of DTC companies since 2013 where the current article seemed to stop and of course the COVID-19 pandemic. The edits also greatly expanded the Race and Genetic Discrimination section to give more representation and bring more diverse viewpoints to the article. I think the draft could be improved by making the sections a bit more concise or dividing into relevant subsections, refraining from making strong claims about priority for people with genetic conditions in the COVID-19 section (or at least find some sources for those points), and fixing the minor grammatical errors mentioned above.