User:SharkNote458/Temperature-sensitive mutant/ArtAboutCows 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?

SharkNote458

Link to draft you're reviewing

Editing User:SharkNote458/Temperature-sensitive mutant - Wikipedia

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Temperature-sensitive mutant - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

• Grammar & Clarity:
  • Several sentences contain grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and typos that hinder readability. For example:
    • "This question also arises from the stand point of temperuture senseitive mutations..."
    • Suggested Fix: "This question also arises in the context of temperature-sensitive mutations..."
    • "Though climate change is not necessarily a good thing there has been some reseach done showing..."
    • Suggested Fix: "Although climate change poses challenges, research has shown..."
  • Spelling mistakes:
    • "tempurature" to "temperature" (multiple instances)
    • "organimsms" to "organisms"
    • "charaterics" to "characteristics"
    • "sentsitve" to "sensitive"
• Redundancy & Repetitive Sentences:
  • The page repeats definitions of permissive and restrictive temperatures multiple times. Consolidating these explanations in one well-structured section would improve clarity.
  • Example:
    • "Temperature-sensitive mutations are changes in genes or proteins that make them work differently depending on the temperature."
    • This is already explained in the Mechanism section.
• Organization Things:
  • Some sections feel disconnected. For example, the climate change section suddenly appears without a clear transition from the previous content.
  • The Ecological Effects and Evolutionary Effects sections overlap in discussing adaptation to temperature changes. These could be merged or better distinguished.
• Sources & Citations:
  • Some references are not properly formatted or are missing in-text citations where statements require backing. Example:
    • "Though climate change is not necessarily a good thing, there has been some research done showing that some organisms have been able to benefit..."
    • Add citation to support this claim.
• Use in Research Section Could Be Expanded:
  • The page mentions research applications, but lacks depth on modern uses in genetic engineering, drug development, and disease modeling. Expanding on this would increase relevance.