User:Neelkoladiya/Ethics of cloning/Danstrib Peer Review
Peer review: Ethics of Cloning
[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? Neelkoladiya
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Ethics of cloning
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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead is generally well-done, and has not yet been edited by my peer. It begins with an introductory statement regarding the concept of the ethics of cloning and goes on to explain in greater detail. After the introduction, the lead concisely describes the article sections. The lead does include information not in the article, and is not overly detailed.
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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is indeed relevant to the topic and is up to date. I did not see any content in the article that appeared to be irrelevant or out of date, and the article seemed to the relatively-recently updated.
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?
There are a few standalone statements that could potentially be considered unbalanced: such as "Serious ethical concerns have been raised by the future possibility of harvesting organs from clones." in the early section of the philosophical debate. While such as statement is true, perhaps it could be reworded so that it does not suggest that "these concerns are correct" as I interpreted it. Overall the article is balanced, and covers both the potential pros and cons of the discussed subject well.
[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 details presented in the article are generally well cited. The sources tend towards being older, 2007-2013, but there are a few new sources added. The links I tested did work.
[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 content is generally well written and I did not have any problems reading it. I did not notice any grammatical / spelling errors. The content is well-organized and logically divided.
[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?
The article does not include any media.
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?