User:SharkNote458/Temperature-sensitive mutant/Hiyanotlower 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

User:SharkNote458/Temperature- Sensitive Mutant

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

Temperature-sensitive mutant

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead should reflect the new content you have added. I would suggest adding a brief description of the key parts of the article, like how temperature-sensitive mutations work, their uses in research, and examples from organisms and bacteriophages. The lead describes the topic well, but it may be a tad too brief.

Content

In my opinion, the new content you added is relevant. I think that you’ve added useful examples of temperature-sensitive mutations in different organisms and bacteriophages. However, I do think that it would be helpful to explain a little more about how these mutations affect ecology and evolution. Some details about studies or specific organisms would make the examples clearer. Overall, it’s relevant and interesting, but adding more details could help! :)

Tone and Balance

The tone is neutral. There didn’t appear to be any biases. You haven’t tried to persuade the reader or over-emphasize any point, which is always good. I also thought that the content seemed balanced, given that the information is from different areas of research.

Sources and References

The new information is mostly backed by reliable sources. However, some sections could use clearer references, especially in the bacteriophage section. I would also suggest adding some newer research from the last 5 years. I think that that would improve the article. Also, you might want to check if the sources include diverse viewpoints or authors.

Organization

For the most part, the content is well-written, easy to follow, and has no obvious spelling or grammar mistakes. The sections are clearly organized, but if you add more examples, it might be worth breaking them down further to make them easier to read.

Overall Impressions

The new content makes the article better, especially by explaining how temperature-sensitive mutations work and their uses in research. The strengths are the clear examples and explanations. To improve it, try adding more details about the ecological and evolutionary effects, and make sure all the sources are current and strong.

Additional Feedback

Adding more specific examples from different organisms would make the article more interesting.

Overall Feedback

Great job so far! Just make sure to update the lead, add a bit more detail, and check that all your sources are up to date. Keep going!