User:Lukepre51094/Vestigal twin/AutinFraer 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?

Lukepre51094

Link to draft you're reviewing
Vestigial twin
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

No changes were made to the lead, so there's nothing to address here.

The changes added provide useful information, but I feel like some of it could be better organized. For example, the content about the medical aspects of vestigial twins feels a bit scattered. It might work better if it were grouped into a separate, clearly labeled section something like "Medical Explanations" or "Clinical Details." That way, it’s easier for readers to find and understand the technical information. Also, adding a few more real-life examples or cases would help illustrate the concept better and make it more relatable.

Thank you, I added a few more headers to break up the paragraph.

You've done a good job keeping the tone neutral and informative, which is exactly what’s needed for Wikipedia. The article remains unbiased, and you’re sticking to factual information without swaying the reader one way or another. Nice job maintaining that balance!

Thank you for the compliment!

The sources you’ve added seem reliable, and they back up the medical information you’ve included. However, it’s important to make sure that every statement, especially the more technical ones, is properly cited to make the content more trustworthy. You’ve got a good foundation here with your sources, but double-check that everything is fully backed up with references.

Thank you for letting me know, I think that I have some more sources that need to be compiled to further strengthen the reliability of my article.

There’s a small area where the flow could be smoothed out. For instance, one of the sentences about medical definitions could be simplified a bit for readers who aren’t as familiar with scientific terms. Breaking down the more complex ideas would help make the article more accessible to a general audience.

Thanks for the suggestion, every advanced medical term has a definition that makes it easier to understand.

You’ve made some great contributions with solid information! To make the article even stronger, consider moving the medical content to its own section and adding more examples to help illustrate the concept. The tone and sources are good, and just a few tweaks to structure and sentence clarity would improve the overall readability.

This casual review sticks with a relaxed tone while still giving constructive feedback. Let me know if it works for you!

Thank you for your compliments and feedback!