User:AJGatch/Periplasm/Smieczkowski 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
Lead:


 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I don't see a change yet, but they are still working on the piece.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think that the first sentence could be broken up into multiple sentences so that it is not as lengthy as it is now.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, I think that it could briefly mention the sections because all it mentions is a short summary of what the periplasm is.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all of the information is present.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it could be shortened a bit.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, a clinical significance section was added which is important today with regards to the health of others.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, overall the information is from sources that are recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that it is not necessary to have a terminology section. It could be changed to something such as background or some other name because I don't think that terminology fits well into the piece.

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, they are all facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the author represents viewpoints equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, all the information is facts, so one can't be swayed one way or the other.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the content is backed up by research articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, because they're not all from one website.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The majority are, but some are from the 1900s which may not be as accurate.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do.

Organization:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, what has been added so far is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I do not see any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content was added into its respective sections.

Images and Media:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are three images in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they have concise captions that describe what the picture is.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images fit with the sections that they belong with.

Overall Questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the added information gives a well-rounded amount of information that is applicable to the real world.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It applies the information of gram positive and negative and what the implications of that can be medically.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that the terminology section should be renamed and possibly more or another section on the clinical significance because that is directly applicable to the information in the article.