Wikipedia

User:Vanessa R Garcia/Evolution by gene duplication/Wholdenwood Peer Review

< User:Vanessa R Garcia

Peer review

edit

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

edit

Lead

edit

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.

edit

Content

edit

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

Content evaluation: The content provided was well written yet lacked many citations for information represented.

edit

Tone and Balance

edit

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

Tone and balance evaluation: Very good job for having unbiased writing.

edit

Sources and References

edit

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

Sources and references evaluation: Understandably it's a difficult subject, but the publisher needs to include a bit more sources for information presented in the article.

edit

Organization

edit

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

Organization evaluation: The content provided is organized in a sequential manner.

edit

Overall impressions

edit

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.

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vanessa_R_Garcia/Evolution_by_gene_duplication/Wholdenwood_Peer_Review&oldid=983084592"