User:Storyminusthes/Genotype/Aa2021dna Peer Review

Peer review.

Lead


 * The lead section is concise and clear to follow. Key ideas are introduced at an appropriate level of detail. The first introductory sentence is pithy.
 * Suggestions:
 * remove the last sentence "term genotype was coined by .." or move to earlier in first paragraph
 * a brief overview of the contents of the article would be beneficial

Content


 * The content of this article is appropriate. Genotype is a very general term; therefore, keeping this article focused is a good idea. There are lots of link to other articles for related topics. That is great!
 * Key related concepts of inheritance is covered. I like that it is split into mendelian and non-mendelian inheritance.
 * The section title "Determination" seems a bit vague. Why not just change to genotyping.
 * I don't know if the "Evolutionary origin of genotype" is necessary. The origin of genotype is really a story of the origin of genetic material and the mechanisms of inheritance.
 * Suggestions:
 * Maybe give penetrance and expressivity a subsection of their own under Mendelian inheritance.
 * maybe provide some example of the above two concepts

Tone and Balance


 * Overall, I think tone and balance in this article is great.
 * Genotype is not inherently controversial, so I think this article doesn't have issues with that
 * Overall I think the language is accessible to a non-expert audience

Sources and Balance


 * This article has a lot of sources. While there are some primary sources, many are secondary sources. Moreover, many sources are drawn from encyclopedia or general genetics texts. I think is is advantageous so that a general audience member can follow up as necessary.
 * I think the sources are current, thorough and comes from a diverse set of authors.
 * Since genotype is a fundamental topic in human genetics, I am sure there are tons of other sources out there. However, I don't think more citations are necessary and, given the quality of the current references, I don't think any more need to be added.
 * A spot check of the links suggests that there is not a lot of dead links.

Organization


 * Overall, the article is well-organized. The language is easy to read while not lacking key genetic concepts. The descriptions of these concepts are accurate. A great strength of this article is how concise the writing is given how broad a topic like genotype is. There are no grammatical errors that I noticed while reading. Content is well organized into sections and sub-sections.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Storyminusthes


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Genotype
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Genotype

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)