User talk:Lindsaypittman/sandbox

Peer Review by Alexia Lewis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aclewis3 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC) A lead section that is easy to understand 1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? - Yes, I do feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic. 2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? -Yes, the lead does reflect the most important information. Lindsay uses the lead to elaborate on what a metavirus is and then explains the morphology and species of metaviruses. 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? -I think the lead gives the background information to what a metavirus is and then allows the rest of the article to flow every well with the following information. I would'nt say that the lead gives more weight to certain parts of the article over others, but it does give a good bit of information regarding the topic as a whole. 4.	Is anything missing? -The only thing that I can notice missing at this point is her 10th reference. There is another reference bellow the 9 references she already has, so this may be her 10th. If that is her 10th reference, then it seems that Lindsay has followed every instruction given for the article and is not missing anything. 5.	Is anything redundant? - No, there does not seem to be any redundant information within the article. A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? -The sections are organized very well. I like how she has the article flow from the definition of a metavirus to the morphology then the species, evolution, and lastly the studies and references. Instead of having certain information clumped into one section, she made several small sections so that everything could be in its own respective place. This is something that I am definitely going to try to do for my own article as it flows very well and makes the article look very neat and well put together. -The sections are very well organized. Lindsay has everything going in a flowing order and makes the material easier to read/understand. 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? -No, I don't think that it would make more sense for this article to be presented another way. The way she has presented the information looks great. She broke down the information in a flowing matter that helped understand the subtopics within the metavirus topic.

Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? - Everything has a good length for the amount of information required, but I think the evolution section could be a little longer. I am not sure how much information is offered for the evolution of metaviruses, but if there is some concrete evidence or arguments about the evolution of a metavirus, I would try to put a small portion of it in the article under the evolution section. 9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? - I do not think that there are any unnecessary sections within this article. The morphology could have possibly been clumped in with the metavirus section, but it still seems to make the paper flow well and makes sense when reading. 10.	Is anything off-topic? -No, I do not think that anything is off-topic. Every section had something to do with metaviruses or helping to explain what a metavirus is. 11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? -I am unsure if there is a specific perspective given in this article. From my understanding, this article gives the scientific facts about metaviruses, lists the species associated with metaviruses, morphology, and the studies which correlate with this topic. I do not see much of a reason for Lindsay to have to take a side/point of view, or perspective towards the topic. 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? -I do not think that there are any viewpoints left out or missing. 13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? -The article does not try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. This article elaborates on metaviruses and explains the hypotheses/experiments which were conducted for her topic. There does not seem to be a point of view or conclusion that needs to be drawn from this. Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? -I am not sure if the author has a perspective about this topic. The topic seems to focus more on the breakdown of what a metavirus is and how they may be closely related to other species of virus as well as that the metavirus may have evolved before Sirevirus. If I am not mistake, there does not seem to be a point of view or perspective to take on this topic. 15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." -No. All of the information given was neutral and did not use phrases such as "the best" or "most people." 16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." -The article does not make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people, but it does make claims on behalf of scientists. 17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. -I do not think that this article focuses on a good or bad perspective. It is pretty straightforward and neutral.

Reliable sources 18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? -Yes, most statements in the article are cited and connected to a reliable source. Lindsay made sure to cite her sentences and added her references to the bottom of the article as well. Every statement or scientific fact is well accounted for. 19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. -There are only a few statements that are attributed to the same source. For the most part, her statements and sources are very balanced. There are a few times throughout the article where a source is used multiple times. This may be something to consider fixing if possible. 20.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! -The statements are well sourced in the article. Her studies are very well sourced and correlate with the information given in the experimental articles. Her other materials are sourced as well.

Article Evaluation

1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? 2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? 4.	Is anything missing? 5.	Is anything redundant?

A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? 9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? 10.	Is anything off-topic? 11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? 13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? 15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." 16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." 17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

Reliable sources 18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? 19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. 20.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaelengolden (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Kaelen Golden review
Article Evaluation by Kaelen Golden

1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The lead does leave me satisfied and makes me curious about what is to come in the paper. 2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? The lead gives me an idea about what is expanded on throughout the paper. The lead previewed the important information 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead does give more weight to certain parts over others. However, i felt the things that needed to be expressed in further detail were done in that way. 4.	Is anything missing? Nothing was missing. Some methods used to analyze genomics may have helped me understand further. 5.	Is anything redundant? There were no aspects that I found redundant.

A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? The sections were in a sensible order with clear heading organization. 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I found the way they were presented to be organized well. The bode presented the information that the introduction left me expected.

Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Some lengths of the sections could have been increased by studies that can add to some statements. 9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? There were no sections that seemed unnecessary, but some topics could have been expanded upon. 10.	Is anything off-topic? There was nothing that I found to be off-topic. 11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? All perspectives were reflected upon as I got a wholistic view of what was discussed. 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? There were no viewpoints that were missing. Some viewpoints could have been enhanced by more evidence about methods used in studies. 13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? There were no conclusions drawn or convincing to a point of view. Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I was not able to guess the perspective of the author. 15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." All statements made were neutral to my interpretation. 16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." All of the claims made were supported with a citation. 17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. There were a lot of statements that I found to be positive. I would not say that the article focuses too much of positivity, but some negative information may add in a beneficial way. Reliable sources 18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The statements are connected to reliable sources and not connected to blogs or self-published authors. 19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. There were statements that were attributed to a single source. This could be helped by support by additional sources. 20.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! There were no statements that did not seem to b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaelengolden (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Peer Reviews
Alexis, thank you so much for taking the time to write a constructive review! I am glad that you liked the way that I structured my article, I spent a lot of time trying to make sections that were broad and flowed well. I also think that you are right about my evolution section and how more information could be added, am I going to try and find more information on the broad evolution of Metavirus.

Kaelen, thank you for taking the time to write a helpful review of my article! I do agree that some of my sections could use some more information, so I am going to try and add more information to these sections. I found what you said about my positivity/negativity in the article interesting, so I will look further into that.