User:Vanessa R Garcia/Evolution by gene duplication/Seashell5300 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)
 * Vanessa R Garcia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Evolution by gene duplication

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I believe the lead has been updated to reflect new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is not as concise and clearly written as the previous article I peer reviewed. I think the author could have better described what evolution my gene really is, as her sentence makes me feel information is lacking.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Some of the major sections of the article is discussed, but not all.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It states "new evolutionary models" but I am unable to find these models in the article and the most recent article posted is from 2006.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It seems to be concise as it explains gene duplication and our change in knowledge on the topic in the past 15 years.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is relevant to the topic as they dive more into models, fate, and activity of duplicated genes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content could be more up-to-date as I would imagine more recent information could be found on this topic now than in 2006.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I am sure this is always more content that could be added to this article as new information on this matter can be found every year.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does not address Wikipedia's equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral as the author strives to add information without biased content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is always room for improvement, as I am not a professional in matters of this topic, I believe there can always be improvement in writing.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one idea or another, rather providing facts as they present themselves.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all content (new or old) is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information as claims are clearly stated with no citation attached.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources do provide information to aid the author in creating a well-informed article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are not as current as would liked, with the latest being 1970 and the earliest at 2007.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The spectrum of authors is diverse with historically marginalized individuals where necessary.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Although the second and seventh link appear to have no link attached to allow the reader to access information, all other references have links provided.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written and goes further into detail depending on its title.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few grammatical errors, but it is okay for it to be incomplete as it is a start class rating.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is a well-organized article as its sections are broken down to reflect the major points of the topic. More sections could be provided as it can be difficult to separate them all according to their purpose to the page's main idea.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images were added to this article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images were added to this article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images were added to this article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images were added to this article.

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?
 * This article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements with 8 sources listed in the reference page. I do worry a lot of claims are made without proper citations posted after the sentence provided.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * For the information provided, I do think 8 sources is quite extensive, but more relevant (up-to-date) sources could always be included.
 * 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?
 * It does and does not follow the patterns of other similar articles as it provides no images or section headings, but does have references and specific titles before discussing each topic.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Most article links are provided, while one or two seem to be missing from the references page.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is more complete compared to the one I peer reviewed earlier as more information is provided, allowing the reader to have a better understanding of the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Some strengths are the many topics it discusses and their connections to gene duplication.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the more up-to-date content added to this article the better it will become.