User:Pandas forest/Origin of life/Milenale13 Peer Review
![]() | Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing?
Pandas forest
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Pandas forest/Origin of life
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Abiogenesis
Evaluate the drafted changes
editLead: I like that you explained where exactly you wanted to put your new information in. This is really helpful as I don't have to ask or estimate where you would like to put the information into the current article! I would suggest though adding a brief description of the article's major sections and an introductory sentence on the topic itself.
Content: The content seems relevant and up to date. De novo protein research seems really cool along with a deeper dive into evidence of abiotic polypeptide synthesis. I feel like the context of this work provides a thorough examination of the proposed routes for prebiotic peptide synthesis, highlighting both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations.
Tone & Balance: The tone is nice and neutral. The balance seems good as well and doesn't use too many complex words and is fairly easy to read.
Sources & References: Your references are all scientific articles and have been peer reviewed which is really good!
Organization: The organization looks great and I appreciate the bolding and how difficult words have a link to what they are.
Images & Media: none
Overall: This looks really good to me! The organization is really nice and easy to read. The sources are formatted and added correctly. It also seems like this be a nice addition to the wikipedia article.