User:Vanessa R Garcia/Evolution by gene duplication/Wholdenwood 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? 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? Not really
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but under the first section Theoretical Models the publisher does a good job explaining the contents of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Kind of yes, it explains mutations and their gene duplications, which is talked about in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

==== Lead evaluation: The Lead section was in the wrong area. The first paragraph in the article is necessary giving the reader a bit of background information before talking about the different mutational capability models of a gene. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the last edit was 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No
 * Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't believe so

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No because the author mentions some benefits and potential for a pseudogene
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * 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? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? The oldest source is from 1970 but other than that yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? No
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * 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? Yes
 * 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? Decently so

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Understanding some lab environment gene experiments.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content could only be further improved with more research and addition of reliable sources.

==== Overall evaluation: This article provides a brief overview of some potential evolutionary models for mutational gene duplication. Though the content provided is neutral in content it lacks citations required to be a trustworthy source of information. Very well written and structured article. ====