User:Lilmeowmeow3161/sandbox

Peer review (Plusoneplusone)

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lilmeowmeow3161
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Biological Data

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? This is a new article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead section can be expanded a little more. Perhaps use one or two sentences to describe the history of biological data.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Just make sure to finish the data sharing and integration section.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Since it's a new article, it fills one of the wikipedia content gap.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is only 2 - 3 secondary sources, so I would recommend to add more.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Should add more sources if possible.
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Should add more sources if possible.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are rarely grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? Yes.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Should add more sources if possible.
• 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? Yes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there is a see also section.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Just make sure to finish the data sharing and integration section in order to complete this article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? All of the information is relevant, and the language is neutral. The structure of this article is well organized.
• How can the content added be improved? In general, more reliable sources should be added to back up the content. The types of biological data section is missing citations.

Peer review (Exploredragon)

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Lilmeowmeow3161
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Biological Data

Lead

Please refer back to the leadership team's feedback on you lead section. As mentioned, there are some subjective sentences included in your lead, please revise it into a clearer and more objective form. You can use one sentence to briefly mention the history of biological data. Since in the lead you mention the comparison of biological data with others, it is better for you to explain it in the main section, or revise this sentence as it is subjective.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Tone and Balance

As mentioned in the lead, some sentences are not that neutral. In the main section, there are some uses of "we". It is better to use the third person pronoun for Wikipedia.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Please refer to the feedback from the leadership team about this issue.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes

Organization evaluation

There are some grammatical issues such as "have le[a]d" in the historical section. There are some redundancy elements that can be considered to eliminate, such "what constitutes as being a living organism"

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? Yes
• 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? Yes

New Article Evaluation

Please add more sources and hyperlinks later.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes

Overall evaluation

The content added so far is very relevant to the topic. Please add more sources and other details to further polish this article.

Article Feedback (Leadership)

Great start to your article! I like how you are incorporating the information from your sources in an easy to follow manner. I also like how you broke down your topic so far with a section about the history and another section about the different types of biological data. Great job adding an image and a “See also” section to your article. You are currently only using 6 sources in your article, but your article needs to reference all 20 articles from your bibliography.

Here are some suggestions:

• “Biological data is highly complex when compared with other forms of data.”
  • This sentence in the lead may not be considered neutral, so I would consider rewording it or adding a citation after it.
• Add more citations throughout the article. For example, the first sentence in the lead should have a citation after it. All of the types of biological data should also have citations after them.
• Headings need to only have the first word capitalized, and this is a Wikipedia rule.
  • For example, “History of biological data” not “History of Biological Data”
• Add more hyperlinks to other articles throughout the article, for example, “protein structure,” and “vaccine” in the lead

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? lilmeowmeow3161
• Link to draft you're reviewing:Man-on-the-side attack

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?

Lead evaluation

The first paragraph of the article would make a decent Lead section. Right now it looks like the article is one long section, so it is difficult to determine if the first paragraph is the intended Lead or if the entire thing is meant to be a Lead. If the later, the Lead would need to be trimmed and made more focused. I can't evaluate if the Lead touches on the major sections of the article because the draft I can see does not have sections.

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?

Content evaluation

The content is off to a good start, but should be expanded. It appears to be up to date and to not include anything out of place. The content does not address an equity gap.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone is neutral and clear.

Sources and References

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The information in the article is all backed up by reliable, current secondary sources. There are only about 5 sources currently. All the links work. The article should be expanded to draw on all 20 sources from your annotated bibliograph.

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?

Organization evaluation

The article needs to be broken into sections. From what I saw you could easily create an applications section.

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?

Images and media evaluation

The article does not include images.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

The article links to other articles and meets the notability requirements. The source list is not exhausted, but I assume more sources will be added as the article is completed.

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?

Overall evaluation

The article has a good first two paragraphs. It then starts to be a bit disorganized and to feel incomplete. Try to break the article into sections and expand on your ideas.

Peer review (Madssnake)

Week 9 review // link to article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Biological_Data

Lead

I think you have a great lead, as I was able to understand what biological data was right away. I also think you have a great length, where the lead is not too long. I know you haven’t put content in the data sharing and integration section, but it would be good to mention that section in your lead just to preview the section. I would maybe clarify what a compound is in the first sentence (like “chemical compound” or something). Another suggestion would be to switch up the writing pattern in the second paragraph, where you start two sentences in a row with “biological information may refer”, and do a close read to fix some of the grammatical errors.

copy edit: Biological Information → Biological information (lowercase i)

Content

You have great content, and it is all relevant to your topic. You also have relevant information, because bioinformatics is a relatively new field. This is not super important, but it might be easier to read if you bolded the types of data (sequences, graphs, etc) instead of italicizing, but up to you! I wonder if it’s a bit redundant to say in each type’s paragraph that is is a form of representing biological data / relates to biological just because this article is about biological data and the section is titled “types of biological data”, so the reader already knows. Minor detail though. Overall, really informative!

copy edit: you have “animo acid” instead of “amino acid” in the first history paragraph

copy edit: I think there is a paragraph made that cut in the middle of a sentence (more to do with meaning of biological organisms”

Tone and Balance

This article is written with a neutral tone, and you don’t try to persuade the reader to any POV.  If your articles discussed this, it might be nice to include pros and cons of representing biological data in each type you describe.

Sources and References

I like how you have a few recent sources, and I’m assuming that you’ll get around to adding the rest of your 20. I think you added citations incorrectly, though, as it seems that you made new citations for the same source rather than reusing them, so I would fix that but using the reuse feature in Wikipedia citations. I also love how you added a lot of Wikipedia links! I think you can also find more words to add Wikipedia links to (ie. bioinformatics, etc)

Organization

I like how you organized your sections and began with the history, and then moved to the types, and then lastly data sharing. Although I said to maybe bold each item in your types section, now that I think about it you could maybe add subheaders for each of those types just to make the division of that section more clear.

For New Articles Only

As this is a new article, I think you’re almost there to be following Wikipedia’s notability requirements! Once you add a few more sources, I think you are all set to go. Your article is similar to others as you include a See also section and an image, which is great!

Overall impressions

Overall, I think this is a great start to an article! I would just go through and check for punctuation and formatting (like capitalization, repeated citations). Once you add more sources, I think you’ll be good to go! Great job. Madssnake (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review (Nicholas100000)

Lead evaluation

The article has a concise and clear introductory sentence that introduces biological data. I am not sure of the lead will clearly describe the article's main points as there are only 2 sections right now.

Content evaluation

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic of biological data as it goes over the history, but for now, the content is out of date because there is only one article from 2006. There is also some missing information on types of biological data (text, sequence data, protein structure, and links). A brief outline of what this is about could be helpful.

Tone and balance evaluation

The content is mostly neutral. There are some claims like "our society" and :"it is a currently hot topic" that seem like an opinion. You could say [the authors name] argues . . .

Sources and references evaluation

the content is not all backed up, or is all backed up by one article. If all that text is based on one article I would recommend citing after each paragraph. The one link in the references section does work.

Organization evaluation

The content is well written and precise. There was not grammatical or spelling errors that I could find. The article is broken down into sections of history and types of biological data, so I think it will be well organized.

Images and media evaluation

There is no images.

New Article Evaluation

I think this is a new wiki article. As of now, the article does not seem to meet Wikipedia;s notability requirements. There is only 1 source and the article does not link to other articles.

Overall evaluation

Overall, this seems like a good start to an article. It is organized and written in a concise manner that makes it easy to read. However, there is not much content to evaluate right now, but I know you still have a lot to write and I look forwards to reading it when it is done.

Peer review (Showtime oski)

Lead

The lead has an introductory sentence that is concise. I am unsure of what you mean by the "products" of living organisms (this could just be me, though). Are you referring to offspring? A beaver dam could be considered a product of a beaver, right? Just something to consider before you publish your article in the main space. You should also add citations to your lead. Overall, the lead is very concise and presents an overview of the article's major sections.

Biological data works closely with Bioinformatics, which is a new discipline focusing on addressing the need to analyze and interpret vast amounts of genomic data.

In the past few decades, leaps in genomic research have lead to massive amounts of biological data. As a result, bioinformatics was created as the convergence of genomics, biotechnology, and information technology, while concentrating on biological data.

Biological Data has also been difficult to define, as bioinformatics is a wide-encompassing field. Further, the question of what constitutes as being a living organism has been contentious, as "alive" represents a nebulous term that encompasses molecular evolution, biological modeling, biophysics, and systems biology. From the past decade onwards, bioinformatics and the analysis of biological data have been thriving as a result of leaps in technology required to manage and interpret data. It is currently a thriving field, as society has become more concentrated on the acquisition, transfer, and exploitation of bioinformatics and biological data.

Our society is investing heavily in the acquisition, transfer and exploitation of data and bioinformatics is at the center stage of activities that focus on the living world. It is currently a hot commodity, and students in bioinformatics will benefit from employment demand in government, the private sector, and academia.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic. I am unsure of the content is up-to-date, as the only source is from 2006. From the content added so far, there is no content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance

The content added is mostly neutral. The content does seem to try to convince the reader of the topic's importance with phrases like "thriving field" and "hot commodity." For the former, I would suggest you just add a citation that corroborates the claim that bioinformatics is a thriving field. For the latter, I would avoid making a statement about how relevant the topic is currently, and to not make an argument that "students in bioinformatics will benefit from...." Instead, try to find authors who argue those positions and credit them when you make such claims.

Sources and References

There is one source currently. It was published in 2006, so it is not relatively current. When you do add more sources, make sure to cite them in your article whenever necessary. I checked the one link and it did not work. It sent me to some pop-up telling me I had won a prize for being the five millionth search.

Organization

The content is well-written. It does not contain many grammatical errors and contains no spelling errors. The content added is well-organized. You have a section for "Types of Biological Data" that will probably be broken into subsections of the major types.

Copy edit: "leaps in genomic research have lead to massive amounts of biological data" -- Since you are writing in the past tense, it should be "have led."

For New Articles Only

I assume you have far more than 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Also, make sure to add plenty of links to other Wikipedia pages to terms in your article (e.g., nebulous term, molecular evolution, biological modeling, biophysics, and systems biology).

Overall impressions

The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. You have a good lead and seem to know how you're going to break your article up into major sections. You should add more content and sources! Good job so far!

James' Peer Review!

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Lilmeowmeow3161
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lilmeowmeow3161/Biological data

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no, but I would expand on the various types of data including protein structure, sequence data, etc.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes, good lead section! Consider adding another paragraph or two to add introductions for the types of biological data, weaknesses of biological data and/or history of biological data.

Lead evaluation

Good lead section, but make sure to include whatever sections you add to the section as introductions.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, make sure you finish your section on types of biological data, and consider adding a section on history of biological data, its current uses and applications, and weaknesses/drawbacks.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, but it's not supposed to I think.

Content evaluation

Good content so far but use more sources (and also cite more sources, try to have at least one source cited per paragraph) and expand on additional topics and add new sections.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? mostly yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? although the content is mostly neutral, the article should address the shortcomings and weaknesses of bioinformatics and biological data in another section.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? So far the article only talks about the positives about biological data.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Somewhat, that biological data is useful and can solve a lot of problems in technology, biology, etc. Needs to add more arguments for things that are negatives of biological data.

Tone and balance evaluation

Need to add more weaknesses, further research needed, and drawbacks of biological data.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the one source does reflect the available literature but needs to add more.
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, there is only one but that source seems to have diverse ideas. There is only 1 source, but that source is academic and relevant.
• Check a few links. Do they work? The one source doesn't have a working link, the link gives an error.

Sources and references evaluation

Need to add more source and make sure links are working!

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, so far it's concise!
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Our society is investing heavily in the acquisition, transfer and exploitation of data and bioinformatics is at the center stage of activities that focus on the living world. It is currently a hot commodity, and students in bioinformatics will benefit from employment demand in government, the private sector, and academia. The above sentences can be broken down into shorter sentences. Consider using semicolon too.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Since the article only has one section so far, I can't tell. But for every section be sure to break them down into digestible parts that reflect the lead section.

Organization evaluation

Good organization so far, make sure when you are writing your next sections, add subsections to break down each section further.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• No consider adding one.
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

consider adding a couple for biological data, how it appears, or examples of it.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? only one source, please add more.
• 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? yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Nope, you need to try to link your article to other articles.

New Article Evaluation

Add more sources and link to other articles similar/related to yours!

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the content so far introduces the topic of biological data, but needs additional work in topics like types of biological data, weaknesses of biological data and/or history of biological data.
• What are the strengths of the content added? it's concise and all sentences support the lead section. also it's easy to read and the sentences form smoothly.
• How can the content added be improved? more citations/sources for next draft, link to other articles, add some new sections, and add examples to current sections.

Overall evaluation

Good job so far! I would continue to add new contents and make sure you cite sentences or paragraphs!

Peer Review!

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Lilmeowmeow3161

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lilmeowmeow3161/Biological data

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No for history, yes for types of bio data

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes, but a part of it seems unwritten so it's not yet included rather than not present entirely

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation

The beginning sentence is good, but there needs to be an introduction into what sections you are going to cover in the article. You already list types of bio data in the lead, which is a section you wrote out, but you didn't talk about how you'd address the history. The lead is concise, but needs more details in the ones I mentioned above.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content added up-to-date?

There aren't really dates, and the only source cited is from 2006.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, there seems to be information for one section missing.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes

Content evaluation

Since there is nothing written under the Types of Bio Data section, there is missing content for the meantime. While the information is relevant, there needs to be more specific dates to the claims made, for example, when were some of the leaps in bio data you mentioned? Are there any specific notable events? "Past decades" is a bit too general.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes, there are underrepresented viewpoints.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone is overall neutral, however, there is a mention about how scientists have had a debate about what is "alive". Because of this, there should be clarification of both arguments. What do some scientists define as "alive", and how do other scientists differ?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes

Are the sources current?

No

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

No

Check a few links. Do they work?

No, it says that Adobe Flash needs to be downloaded. Might just be an issue for me though.

Sources and references evaluation

The one source listed is from 2006, so not the most up-to-date. The source does reflect the literature surrounding the topic, however there is only one. There should be more than 1 article to get the diverse spectrum of authors needed to fill the Wikipedia equity gaps.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

unsure

Organization evaluation

There are only two sections, but only one is completed. If you are writing a new article, I might suggest trying to split the sections up with more detail. If you are simply adding to an existing one, then it's fine to keep the number of sections, but finishing the second section about the types of data would be ideal for the next round. There are no errors, and the content is understandable. There might need to be more specifics added, such as the ones I mentioned in earlier sections (i.e. perspectives about an issue, specific examples)

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No

Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation

If you find an image necessary, then perhaps it would be useful. I don't think an image is necessary particularly, but you have control as the author.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? New Article Evaluation 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? Overall evaluation

Overall, the article is easy to understand and has a good level of writing for Wikipedia. The article does need to be finished, and the one completed sentence needs to provide more information in certain aspects to the claims made. The lead needs to include what else you are planning on talking about for the rest of the article (the mention of a history section is left out of the lead, for example).

HanMiKC (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer review (Bobalily)

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Lilmeowmeow3161
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lilmeowmeow3161/sandbox#Biological Data

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Too concise.

Lead evaluation

The lead may be a little too short but I can definitely see it expanded when you add more sections later on, and when you add more references to the page.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes (history of biological data)
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes (2006)
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes (missing content)
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation

The content only has one section on the history of biological data, so it lacks inclusion of different ideas and discussion within the topic. Some interesting subsections may be "privacy concerns on biological data," "cases on biological data" that includes invasion of privacy or real life examples, "laws and policies," "see also" that links to other relevant and related wiki pages.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

The draft is pretty short to determine whether it is heavily biased or not, as well as if it is overrepresented or underrepresented. Another subsection that you can consider adding to make the article more broad is to include different countries on biological data.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes (2006)
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No (there is only one source referenced)
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

A great way to start is to look through our bibliography annotations which we should have 15 done right now and 20 done by this saturday. I find looking through my annotations helpful to find certain information that I want to include in my article, as well as what subsections I want to add. Also, it may be a good idea to reference sources when you add sentences to build up credibility of the article and for people to refer back to if they are interested.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

It seems like the paragraph that starts with "Our society is investing heavily ..." should be in the lead instead of the history. Another suggestion would be to avoid using "our" or adjectives that contains an opinion like "heavily", "massive," and "difficult" unless it is cited.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

Currently not in the Week where we add images.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? No
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No, too little sources
• 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? No
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

New Article Evaluation

It would be a great exercise to add a "see also" section right before "References" that links to other related wiki pages. Also, hyper linking certain words in the article will be helpful for readers if they want to refer to the pages. Some keywords that may have wiki pages are "Bioinformatics" and "living organisms."

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? History is an important part in learning a new topic, so it is a great way to start off the article as the first section.
• How can the content added be improved? Adding more resources and sections/ subsections will be helpful. Adding hyperlinks and "see also" section will be great as well.

Overall evaluation

Biological Data is a very interesting topic. I hope you are having fun in researching and learning more about this topic! It is definitely difficult to write a wikipedia page knowing that it will be published online, and may be referenced by future learners for your topic. Since two weeks of starting the first draft has passed, more content should be added so future weeks will not be too hectic.

Peer review (Nankingaszz)

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Lilmeowmeow3161
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lilmeowmeow3161/sandbox#Biological Data

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?

Lead evaluation

The Lead has an introduction about the article's main topic and has a brief description for what the article includes so far. It is very concise.

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?

Content evaluation

The content added is relevant to the topic because it introduces the history of the topic. The only citation that the draft has for now is from 2006 thus I believe more current citations can do better. The draft is currently missing content for different types and it does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral and not biased toward a particular position. The content for now introduces the history about the topic, and no ideas within it are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The draft has only citation for now and the link works well. I believe you will be adding much more citations into the article when working on the "different types" section, the source can be considered as "current" since it's in 2006, but even closer dates would give us more current courses. There is no diversity of authors for now since there is only one citation, but I believe the diversity will be there once there are more citations!

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?

Organization evaluation

The content is easy to read and organized in a clear way. There are no grammatical errors that I found. I am not quite sure about the usage of some of the adjectives such as "massive" amounts, and a back up source for the claim might help.

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?

Images and media evaluation

There are no images for now.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

The article for now has only one reliable secondary source and I believe more sections can be added into the article such as its impact on humans/industry. There is no link to other topic for now but I believe you can add in more hyperlinks to some technical terminologies such as "Bioinformatics".

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?

Overall evaluation

Overall the content is relevant to the topic, the strength is that it is organized in an easy-to-read way! Since the article is relatively short for now, I think adding in more sections to bring in more aspects of the topic, bringing more pictures, and adding more citations will improve the article.

Topic Ideas: Biological Data

I want to write this article on biological data to include more information on the collection and dissemination of biological data. This could include things such as consumer protections of their own biological data and the history of it. Moreover, this Wikipedia page will also cover the future of biological data and the frameworks that make it possible to protect personal information within the healthcare system.

Sections should include: Data privacy + Algorithm Structures that evaluate Biological Data, Privacy protection laws in healthcare, Types of Biological Data? (could be too expansive)

Biological Data introduction should include a brief history (time frame to be indeterminate at this point) including the beginning of biological computing.

Other topic ideas could include privacy concerns in biological data including protections and violations. I'll include links to specific instances and laws that protect biological data in healthcare.

Lead: Biological Data pertains to the collection of information in biological form.

Outline

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Article Title: Information Privacy Laws
• This article covers the different voting methods

Lead

Countries across the major regions of the world have enacted data privacy laws, to protect users within these countries.

Information Privacy Laws that have been established include

• • National data protection authorities in the European Union and the European Free Trade Association
  • Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Australia)
  • Privacy Commissioner (New Zealand)
  • Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL, France)
  • Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (Germany)
  • Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (Hong Kong)
  • Data Protection Commissioner (Ireland)
  • Office of the Data Protection Supervisor (Isle of Man)
  • National Privacy Commission (Philippines)
  • Personal Data Protection Commission (Singapore)
  • Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (Switzerland)
  • Information Commissioner's Office (ICO, United Kingdom)

Content

The article presents a list of the different laws that each country has established, but does not go into differences between the countries, nor does it include the similarities between each of the authorities by country and what these laws have accomplished. The content remains up to date, but does not go into a thorough analysis of these laws beyond simplified descriptions of what they entail. A content gap that could be addressed within this article could be the implications that these laws have had and the relative impact they have made in accomplishing their privacy goals. It does not go into detail of the marginalized communities affected by these laws and does not present an analysis on any historically underrepresented groups either.

Tone and Balance

The article remains balanced and informative without apparent political or emotional leanings. The article focuses on the facts of the laws by listing them out within each region of the world, and has hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages and citations towards the end of the article, leading me to believe that the information within the article is trustworthy and bias-free.

Sources and References

The article is broken down into two sections: "Laws" (which includes hyperlinks to the official documents entailing the laws) and "Authorities by country" (including the organizations responsible for enforcing data privacy laws.)

The links function by taking the user to other Wikipedia pages that cite the specific information. Moreover, the references towards the end are mostly ISBN's of other books that reference the history of these laws.

Organization

Guiding questions

The article is well written because it includes other sections such as "Information Types" including "Cable TV, Educational, Financial, Internet" that provide more information on the various types of personal information often come under privacy concerns. This article is also relatively simplistic given that it is based on law, remaining factually based.

It does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors, and it is simple enough for a general audience to read through and gain an understanding of. The article is also appropriately sectioned.

Images and Media

• Unfortunately this information privacy article does not contain any images, which may be a positive attribute. Given how "international" the scope of the article is, presenting one country's laws as the face of the article may indicate bias or preference towards one region of the world. The media on this page does not remain present.

Checking the talk page

• A question I found particularly interesting was one user stating that
  • "The term "information privacy" sounds ungrammatical. English grammar categorizes information as a noun. However, the usage of the term information functions as an adjective, which does not match the lexical category of the actual word itself. This article already contains three terms that use an adjective to modify the noun. These include Financial privacy, Medical privacy, and Political privacy."
  • This was curious to me such that the article was titled "information privacy" and broken down into subcategories following the edit.
  • There were also several instances of users fixing pronouns such as defining who "we" meant within a specific article.
• This article was part of several projects including: Wikiproject Computing, Wikproject Internet, and Wikiproject Mass Surveillance. In all of these categories the article was ranked "C-class" on the quality scale and deemed as "High" priority. This Wikipedia page differed from our analysis in that it was far simpler than the articles that we have covered. However, I believe that it is a result of the topic (international data privacy laws) that remain pedagogical in tone.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

The article's status is "High" indicating that this topic is important to Wikipedians and the general public. However, I think that there is room for expansion as this article was relatively short and could have gone into the details and important aspects of each of the international laws. Moreover, I wished that the article provided more significance on what these laws would have on the general public's day to day life. The article could be improved by adding more content in general, but also increasing the interpretation of these laws by including excerpts from legal scholars and including several points of view.

Overall, I would say this article is subject to improvement: it is underdeveloped but has potential to be very strong.

Peer review (Brian)

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • Lilmeowmeow3161
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Lilmeowmeow3161/Biological data

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?

Lead evaluation

The Lead is concise and introduces the topic of Biological data. However, it would be nice if you expanded on how it is more complex than other forms of data.

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?

Content evaluation

Overall, your paragraph on the history of Biological Data is comprehensive. However, I think it can be improved with some specific dates of biological data developments since it is a section on the history of Biological Data.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, the entire article is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

At the moment, I only see 1 academic article source. It is relatively recent.

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?

Organization evaluation

Overall, I think the article has a decent draft and outline of the topic. There is a small grammatical error in the 2nd sentence of the history section, which should be "In the past few decades, leaps in genomic research have led to massive amounts of biological data."

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?

Images and media evaluation

Currently, the article does not contain any images.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

Overall evaluation

Overall, I think you have a great lead and outline for the rest of your article! Now, all you will need is to expand on text, sequence data, protein structure, and links.

Optional activity

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: Talk:Information privacy#Legal Scholarship

Article Draft

Biological Data

Biological data refers to a compound or information derived from living organisms and their products. A medicinal compound made from living organisms, such as a serum or a vaccine, could be characterized as biological data. Biological data is highly complex when compared with other forms of data. There are many forms of biological data, including text, sequence data, protein structure, and links among others.

History of Biological Data

Biological data works closely with Bioinformatics, which is a new discipline focusing on addressing the need to analyze and interpret vast amounts of genomic data.

In the past few decades, leaps in genomic research have lead to massive amounts of biological data. As a result, bioinformatics was created as the convergence of genomics, biotechnology, and information technology, while concentrating on biological data.

Biological Data has also been difficult to define, as bioinformatics is a wide-encompassing field. Further, the question of what constitutes as being a living organism has been contentious, as "alive" represents a nebulous term that encompasses molecular evolution, biological modeling, biophysics, and systems biology. From the past decade onwards, bioinformatics and the analysis of biological data have been thriving as a result of leaps in technology required to manage and interpret data. It is currently a thriving field, as society has become more concentrated on the acquisition, transfer, and exploitation of bioinformatics and biological data.

Our society is investing heavily in the acquisition, transfer and exploitation of data and bioinformatics is at the center stage of activities that focus on the living world. It is currently a hot commodity, and students in bioinformatics will benefit from employment demand in government, the private sector, and academia.

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Information privacy: Secret Ballot
• This article discusses the "secret ballot" otherwise known as the Australian or Massachusetts ballot, which is a voting practice where the voter's choice is kept anonymous.

Lead

The content of this article covers political privacy and is comprehensive of the entirety of the voting process from ballot collection to voting patterns and effects. The introduction provides a clear overview of what the secret ballot is alongside the importance of the ballot in achieving political privacy.

Content

This article presents a multitude of information on the secret ballot and covers the entirety of the political process. However, the content focuses exclusively on France, the United Kingdom, Australian and New Zealand, and the United States. Within this framework, other countries could be explored. Moreover, the article presents an extensive history of the secret ballot (including ancient Grecian history) which is intriguing, given the scope of the article.

So far, the article is extensive in that it also includes disabled people and secrecy exceptions, so it does include historically marginalized people within the article.

Tone and Balance

The article remains balanced and informative without apparent political or emotional leanings. The article remains quite historical for the first half and continues this trend throughout the ballot design + election process sections of the article. Through the "Secrecy Exceptions" portion of the article, the author remained neutral in the criticism of the United Kingdom secret ballot arrangements, and did not lean towards a specific political direction.

Sources and References

The article is broken down into nine sections, including the external links. After reading over each section, the author provided extensive citations for most of the articles, but was missing citations for the "Secrecy exceptions" and "Chronology of introduction" sections.

Organization

The article remained balanced in organization by including historical, international, and criticisms of the secret ballot. Although some sections were missing citations, the overall structure of the article remained balanced in perspectives. While reading through it, I did not feel like the article lacked flow as it covered multiple countries before leading into counterarguments against each of the laws.

Images and Media

• The photo at the top of the page was "Luis Guillermo Solís, then-President of Costa Rica, votes behind a privacy screen"
• The other photos were historically accurate with photos of secret ballots in each country: the UK had photos from 1755 and 1880. The United States also had photos from 1900, which demonstrated the historical tone the article took for the first half.
• The "Disabled people" section of the article also included a photo of a voting machine meant for individuals with disabilities, which seemed appropriate given the other photos of "secret ballots" in previous sections.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• A point I found particularly interesting was one user stating that
  • "This article contains blurry and conflicting information: While this article provides excellent historical information about the secret ballot, it provides little clarity with respect to who has the legal right to a secret ballot. Four countries are discussed from a historical perspective that could easily lead a casual reader to conclude that the citizens of each of these countries are entitled to a secret ballot when in fact the information contained herein supports only that French citizens and a few select groups within the other countries have that right."
  • There were several discussions between editors of the page, and included comments that clarified these comments and additional hyperlinks.
• This page was part of WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Elections and Referendums, and WikiProject Australia.
• In these projects, this page was rated Start-Class to Mid-Importance

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

The article was presented in a balanced manner that was appropriate given the subject matter of secret ballots. It included the purpose and history of the secret ballot in a manner that was informative and did not hold political sway, despite the political nature of the article.

Optional activity

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: TTalk:Secret ballot
• Under "Chronology (US Edition)" at the bottom of the page.