User:Roamorin/New eugenics/Danstrib Peer Review
Peer review: New eugenics
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Roamorin
- Link to draft you're reviewing: New eugenics
Lead
[edit]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?
The Lead has not yet been updated by my peer. The introductory statement is in need of revising as it is not clear in my opinion and is very long. It does not include a description of the article's sections, and includes information not elsewhere in the article. The lead is concise, but overly so, and needs more details.
[edit]
Content
[edit]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?
The content of the article is lacking. The article primarily describes "old" eugenics, (aka not "new eugenics") without significant differentiation between the two. Additionally the article describes criticism of new eugenics without explaining what it actually is.
[edit]
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
The article mentions many criticisms of the topic, without the addition of any balancing opinions. The article is generally positioned against the topic. The topic does not overtly seem to persuade, but it is primarily based on criticism.
[edit]
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
The content is generally appropriately cited, but could use further source citation. The sources are generally from before 2015, and are not current. Links generally work correctly.
[edit]
Organization
[edit]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?
The organization of the topic is poor. The history is discussed before any meaningful description, the arguments against the topic are presented after that, and the descriptions that are provided heavily feature jargon that is not accessible to non-experts in the field. I did not notice any major spelling or grammar errors.
[edit]
Images and Media
[edit]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?
There is not any media used in this article.
[edit]
Overall impressions
[edit]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?