User:Spectral099/Chromosome abnormality/Liliapearljackson 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)
 * Spectral099
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Spectral099/Chromosome abnormality

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? - yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - vaguely
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - it is concise but could use more overview of future topics

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - there is a lot of information on some things and not on others, not very balanced
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - it acknowledges some conditions that occur from Chromosome Abnormality, like Down Syndrome, but not in depth

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - it definitely touches on some subjects more than others, but not in a biased tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - it talks about Down Syndrome a lot but doesn't touch on other conditions that stem from CA as much
 * 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? - Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - yes
 * Are the sources current? yes, most are within the last 25 years
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, there is a wild variety of gender and nationality within the authors
 * 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? - for the most part
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, but some are unequally distributed

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? - No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - yes, it looks as if someone made the image for this purpose. It has a name and link to PNG.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - could be better

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? yes but there is always more to do. We talked about possibly editing the lead and organizational structure, but that is a lot of take on.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - adds an overview of effects that CA can have, in addition to the examples given
 * How can the content added be improved? - the article could be further improved by a more structured lead and less "jump around" organization