User:Ddelrio08/Origin of transfer/BiomolecularFeminist 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:

Lead

Guiding 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?

Content

Guiding 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?

Tone and Balance

Guiding 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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding 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?

Images and Media

Guiding 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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding 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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Ddelrio08, Tahmina018, Zezhong

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ddelrio08/Origin_of_transfer?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Origin of transfer

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

==Origin of Transfer Peer Review 1==

All new content appears to be backed up by reliable sources of information. It appears a lot of the sources are nearing 30 years old, and while that information may be relevant to the topic, I am wondering if more recent sources can be added to augment the perspectives, especially as the science of topics like this can evolve so quickly. For example, currently most sources are from the 80s, 90s, or early 2000s, and I imagine a lot of recent research has also taken place that can offer different perspectives that can make this article more comprehensive in scope.

However, on the positive side, it seems most (if not all) of your sources are from journals and are published works, not news coverage/random websites.

One area that seems off is the numbering of the references section. It seems that you may have included sources from the original article as well as having added on your own. I would make sure the numbering scheme selected actually aligns with the sources you're trying to quote. As it stands, the number 1 could be standing for one of two articles according to the sources, so I would rectify this as not to misrepresent someone's work and so readers can confidently access the sources from which you got your information.

Also, looking at your sources, only some have the "doi" links. Can you add more of the complete citations that link to the actual article itself so people can access it for their own reference? Again, I am not sure if those are the sources that you added yourself or ones that were original to the article, as the numbering scheme is not quite correct.

As written, the article is rather concise. It is written in a way that follows a logical flow, and while it is technically complex with the methods, it does break down the parts of the oriT individually in a way that you can follow (ex: how you mention different proteins, enzymes, etc involved in the Function section).

I understand we are in the early staging of drafting and editing, but a large scope approach could be taken to really supplement several key areas that I think you can develop: history/discovery, early experiments, common methods, applications/uses. These are just some ideas of sections that you could add to supplement the "Function" and "Bacterial Conjugation" sections currently drafted. With these two existing sections, I imagine there is more that you could add as well. The current function section is sufficient, but I imagine there may be some more information from even the sources you have already cited. Using those already cited sources you can likely find even more information to add to these sections without having to do more work to find new sources for that information.

I checked many of your links, and they appear to work and link to the other articles that are supposed, so that is good!

Spelling and grammar look good. I am wondering about the syntax of the sentence starting with "A relaxase..." I would have to reference a style guide, but I am wondering if the phrase in parentheses can be changed to be a dependent clause with surrounded by commas instead? It seemed like Wikipedia articles would prefer syntax that doesn't use parentheses, just based off articles I've read (but don't quote me -- just thought it might be something to look into).

In this version, there are no images included in the article. It might be good to some images or diagrams, as it is a topic that is not immediately intuitive, even to people (like students) who may have some concept but are not entirely familiar. These images would be have to be available for public use, though, of course! Additionally, with these images, captions would be especially important for the same regions.

Currently, the content is just about as organized as it can get, yet currently the article is a bit limited. I would expand upon these as I noted above.

I would edit your lead as written. In the current version of the article, there is already a developed lead that you would be replacing if you published your sandbox draft as written. Can you find a way to incorporate the more detailed approach of the current version and mesh it with the lead you've developed? Alternatively, can you find more information that supplements the current version's lead if you have to scrap your lead in your sandbox?

As written, the content is neutral and balanced. However, as you are likely going to add a lot more to this draft, keep in mind to maintain this tone throughout your work. Just keep up what you already have going! This isn't a requirement, but it may be especially interesting to find work or applications of the oriT written by an underrepresented population.

~~~BiomolecularFeminist