User:Sh1539/Genetic discrimination/Rka77 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sh1539, Meghanmcq, Mesmith017


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sh1539/Genetic discrimination


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Genetic discrimination

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi guys! Here's my peer review:

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to  reflect the new content added by your peer? - I noticed that you didn't draft a new lead to reflect the changes being made to the article. I'm not sure if you were planning to update it, but I think it would be useful to make some edits that will help the lead be more reflective of the article once your content is added.

Content

Tone and Balance
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is there content that is missing or content that doesn't belong? - I think you guys added some really interesting content to the article. One thing that i think it might be helpful to include somewhere in the article, potentially even in the lead, would be how you are incorporating privacy into the definition of genetic discrimination. Particularly in the case of the section about Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing, I found the content to largely be focused on the risks that this type of testing pose to patient privacy. I can definitely make the connection between how such breaches of privacy may lead to genetic discrimination eventually, but if I explicitly go by the definition of genetic discrimination at the beginning of the already existing article, then some of the sections of your article don't necessarily appear to demonstrate a connection. I think maybe just adding a line in the lead about the risks of genetic discrimination that can be caused as a result of testing would be enough to make that connection more clear.
 * Is the content added up to date? - It appeared to me that most of your sources are very recent, with some being published as soon as this year, so I would say that your content is definitely current.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Somewhat. In the Race and Genetic Discrimination section, you guys definitely address underrepresented populations, but it is only a few lines. It might be helpful to expand on this a bit more and address genetic discrimination among marginalized groups with some more specific examples if there is information available.


 * Is the content added neutral? - Reading your article, I felt that the content and writing was fairly neutral. However, occasionally, I did feel like the opinion of the writer was coming through rather than just presenting factual information. Like this sentence, for example; "Ultimately, this means that individuals with genetic conditions are at higher risk for contracting COVID-19 and should be prioritized in terms of care and preventative measures, as well as legal protections." Although this is a very logical conclusion, maybe it would appear more objective if you could add a few words like, "As a result, most healthcare professionals agree that..."
 * 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? - Although it was never explicitly stated that DTC genetic testing is bad, it did feel a bit like the article was pushing me towards that conclusion. I think the issue that is introduced by addressing DTC testing might be that the viewpoint about its risks is a bit over-represented while there is not much content addressing the opposite view about its usefulness. But again, I worry that this is getting off the topic of genetic discrimination so I'm not quite sure what can be done.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - For the most part yes, but I did identify a sentence her and ther which made a statement but didn't have a citation. For example, "This however has not been the case at least during the beginning months of the pandemic, as these legal protections have been put to the test. With scarce resources, including PPE, ventilators, and other crucial equipment, doctors and heath care systems have been put under incredible stress to treat an ever-increasing number of patients." I'm not doubting that whaat you are stating in these sentences is true, however it might lend you more credibility as an author if you were able to include a source citation
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes, it appears to me that you used a wide range of sources and types.
 * Are the sources current? - The sources largely appear to be very recent.

Organization


 * 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? - There were a few places where I couldn't quite understand what you were saying, but I think that it was mostly because of incomplete sentences. For example, in the section about COVID-19, a few sentences that confused me are:
 * "Individuals with co-morbidities, such as pre-existing conditions like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, immunocompromised conditions, obesity, etc." - not sure what this sentence is supposed to connect to?
 * "Genetic conditions are among the some of the causes of co-morbid conditions..." - I think maybe missing a word here?
 * There were some other typos, etc throughout the article but they should be easily fixable. Maybe reading out loud would be helpful to catch any errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I think the content is organized into sections reflective of the material.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? How can the content added be improved? - I think the content you have added to the article will enhance its informational value and bring it up to date with current issues such as COVID-19. The only thing I would say could be improved is to maybe try to make sure that you are making statements as objectively as possible and try to identify instances in which you may be heavily favoring one perspective over another b y providing a lot of information to support a specific viewpoint.