Peer review
editGeneral info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing? Vanessa R Garcia
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Gene duplication
Lead
editGuiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
editThe lead is concise. More could potentially be added in this area. There are topics in the article that are not mentioned in the lead.
Content
editGuiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation
editOne of the references is from a very old study. Possibly check if this article's findings are still accurate or find another study that is more recent.
Anderson P, Roth J (May 1981). "Spontaneous tandem genetic duplications in Salmonella typhimurium arise by unequal recombination between rRNA (rrn) cistrons". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 78(5): 3113–7. Bibcode:1981PNAS...78.3113A. doi:10.1073/pnas.78.5.3113. PMC 319510. PMID 6789329.
Tone and Balance
editGuiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
editThis article is unbiased.
Sources and References
editGuiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
editThe "Next generation sequencing" section has no references.
Organization
editGuiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
editThe article is organized well into subcategories. The sections "Genomic microarrays detect duplications", "Next generation sequencing" and "As amplification" have less information than the other sections.
Images and Media
editGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
editThe images are explained well in the article.
For New Articles Only
editIf the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
- Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
New Article Evaluation
editOverall impressions
editGuiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?