User talk:Scpavuluri/sandbox

Peer Review
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, your lead clearly and succinctly states what Woese’s Dogma is and why it is vital to evolutionary biology.

-Thanks, I'm glad you found the lead to address the relevant information.

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

Yes, your lead states the basic information that the rest of your article builds upon.

-Thank you for the feedback.

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others?

I do not feel that it does, because it is concise and only touches on the basic principles.

-Thanks, I'm glad you found it concise and well-distributed.

4. Is anything missing?

You could potentially expand on the history of Woese’s Dogma itself a bit more, but I think you have mostly covered the science behind it relatively well.

-Thanks for the feedback, I will add a sentence or two going over the history in further detail.

5. Is anything redundant?

Not at all, each sentence of your lead is unique in what exactly it addresses.

-I'm glad to know nothing was unnecessary, I appreciate the feedback.

A clear structure

6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order?

I think they are, because you presented the evidence behind the theory first, then discussed its significance in depth, and saved the criticisms for last. This makes sense to me because usually criticisms would be one of the least important things someone would be concerned with if they were searching for this article. They would probably be more concerned with what the theory actually entails and what it was based on.

''-Thanks! Your feedback makes a lot of sense to me, so I will keep my organization as it is.''

7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

Not in my opinion, as explained before I think it is fine the way it is.

-Thank you, I appreciate the feedback.

Balanced coverage

8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?

Yes, you focused a lot of effort on explaining the science and evidence behind the theory, which I believe is the most important part.

-I'm glad to know the information I selected to present was well received.

9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary?

No, each section brings something important to the discussion.

-I'm glad to know that I did not add any extraneous information.

10. Is anything off-topic?

Not at all, all sections are relevant to Woese’s Dogma.

-Thanks, I appreciate knowing I added nothing irrelevant.

11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?

Yes, it seems to reflect the perspectives accurately.

-Thanks for the feedback, I did indeed only present the information found listed in the literature i sourced from.

12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

The topic seems fairly cut and dry with arguments simply for or against it. The article includes the science supporting it, but also criticisms against it.

-Thanks, I'm glad you feel that I addressed all important viewpoints.

13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

Not really, your article basically only states facts and does not try to persuade.

-Thanks, that is correct, I did not try to persuade within this article.

Neutral content

14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

No, there is no heavy bias.

-Thank you, I appreciate knowing that you found the article unbiased.

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."

None that I noticed.

-Thanks for the feedback.

16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

Everytime I saw a statement like this, there was a source accompanying it, so while there were a few instances of unnamed research or people, there were still sources for the claim.

''-Thanks for the feedback! I will add who conducted certain research or held certain perspectives if appropriate, but some of the journal articles or studies that I pulled from made statements regarding the scientific community in general, so I am not sure if I can completely eliminate this.''

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.

The criticism section could possibly use a bit more info, but the article seems more focused on facts than it is on specifically positive or negative things.

-Thanks, I will try to add a bit of background and clarify the criticisms.

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, the sources appear to be reliable primary sources for the most part.

-I'm glad to know that my sources were sufficiently credible.

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.

No, there seems to be a fair amount of variation, with the only real clumping of sources being in the case studies where it makes sense.

''-Thanks! I'm glad my use of sources in the context of these case studies does not need to be changed.''

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!

Almost every sentence is sourced, and those that are not draw from a previous sentence that was sourced. The statements made seem to accurately represent the source they are derived from.

-Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad you appreciated my use of sources.

Jah-Nice Washington

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, the author did a great job describing what Woese’s Dogma is and how it was created.

-Thanks, I'm glad that you appreciated my lead.

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, it all makes sense.

-Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No, the entire article is equally weighted.

-Thank you, I'm glad you found the lead to be well-distributed.

4. Is anything missing? No, I thought it was well explained and nothing else needs to be added.

-Thanks, I appreciate knowing that I added all of the relevant information.

5. Is anything redundant? I think at the end explaining why you added a sentence is probably not needed, and also at the end you started the sentence with “the idea of RNA world” I really didn’t understand that part and I feel like the sentence would be fine without it or maybe reworded. Also I think the paragraph above the article selection is unnecessary.

''-Thanks for the feedback. I will reword the first sentence of the criticisms to make it more clear. The sentence at the end is not part of my article, so I will not be keeping it. Additionally, the paragraph above article selection is not part of my article, so I will not be keeping it.''

A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Yes the author did a great job explaining what it was and then broke it down.

-Thanks, I'm glad you found my sections to be well organized.

7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Maybe you could have put the criticisms before the tRNA and rRNA homology just so we can see where there is controversy and then you breaking it down would better explain why there is controversy.

''- Thanks for the feedback. It would not make sense to add the criticisms earlier, because the criticisms are in regards to ribosomes being self-replicating entities, and the role of rRNA in regards to that. I will however try to reword it to make it more clear what the criticisms are in regards to.''

Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Yes, they are all equally lengthy.

-Thanks, I appreciate knowing the length was sufficient.

9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Just the first paragraph explaining how outdated the information is and etc. I personally understand why you did it but I am not sure if this information needs to be included in your article.

''-Thanks for the feedback. The the paragraph you are talking about was not part of my article, it was an article evaluation of a different article for wikiedu. This will not be a part of my final draft.''

10. Is anything off-topic? No, everything seems to be on topic and correlates.

-Thanks, I'm glad to know my information was relevant.

11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Yes, it talks about some criticism and it also has facts which allows readers to think more critically about the topic.

-Thank you, I appreciate knowing that I presented the necessary perspectives.

12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No, I think that everything is there.

-Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Yes, because the author explains why things happen with evidence.

''-Thanks for the feedback, but I disagree, I only presented information from experiments and literature reviews. I did not attempt to draw any conclusions. ''

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Yes, I believe that the author really believes the facts that is stated and I think it would be hard for the author to disagree when there are facts within the article.

''-Thanks for the feedback, but I disagree. I do not think I was biased in my presentation of the information, as I included broad factual information and some experiments, and did not use my own opinion to reach a conclusion or try to persuade.''

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, I think the author did a really good job staying away from unneutral phrases especially in the conclusion paragraph.

- Thanks, I'm glad to know my word choice was neutral.

16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, the author steered away from these words.

-Thanks, I'm glad you found my the way I presented the information to be credible.

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 feel like it is neutral, the author doesn’t talk about negatives or positives within this article.

-Thanks, I appreciate the feedback, I'm gad to know that I did not focus excessively on positive or negative information.

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? They are from credible sources from articles and books.

-Thanks, I'm glad to know that my sources were credible.

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. No, everything in here is equally balanced with the sources.

-Thank you, I appreciate knowing my sources were well distributed.

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! No, everything in here was accurately cited.

-Thank you for your feedback, I'm glad to know my article was sourced sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswashington2 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)