User:AJGatch/Periplasm/Lbcobb Peer Review

General info
(AJGatch)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Periplasm
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Periplasm

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The content added to the Periplasm article has contributed to its overall strength. The lead section, although potentially overly detailed (potentially needs to be reduced to only a few sentences), accurately describes the periplasm and what is found within the periplasm. Potentially including a sentence about the purpose of the periplasm could help in enhancing the lead section.

In terms of content and organization, content added seems up-to-date. Content added is clear and easy to read, and allows for a potential reader to develop an organized understanding of the topic.The "terminology" section provides a detailed analysis of the membranes of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. However, potentially including more information about how the periplasm relates to these membranes could help in maintaining the relevance of the article. Further, adding more information to the "function" section of the article and even adding a section that shows its purpose within organisms would allow for a more cohesive article and could be serve as almost a conclusion for the article; the start of the "in fungi" section could potentially be used in either of these sections. With these revisions, the content and organization of the article could be even stronger than it already is.

The content added to this article is neutral; there are no apparent biases towards a particular position, and does not include any persuasive sentences that would allow the reader to favor one side over another.

Viewing the references section, all content is backed up by reliable sources of information, especially secondary sources. The article does a great job at incorporating these references within the article itself, which significantly adds to the article's strength and reliability. Sources are current, thorough, and sufficient, and are written by a wide range of authors. Links placed within the article work.

Two images have been added to the article; each image is laid out in a visually appealing way, with cross-links that describe processes and structures within the picture itself. Both pictures include detailed and accurate captions. Images placed within the article can be found on Wikimedia Commons.

Overall, the content added has improved to the quality of the article. Through adding extra information about the function and purpose of the periplasm and shortening the lead section, the quality of the article can be even more improved. Great work!