User:Akotaco27/Repolarization/Ambikakhurana 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? (provide username)
 * Akotaco27
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Repolarization

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has not been updated yet, although my peer and the people in his/her group have started editing specific parts of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence. It is clear, although it is not very concise. To me, the introductory sentence could be divided into two sentences to make it easier to understand.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a paragraph about different mechanisms, channels, and molecules needed for repolarization that will then be elaborated in the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead includes information about the absolute refractory period that is not included anywhere else in the rest of the article. It might be good to include a paragraph about the absolute refractory period later on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise. It provides a broad picture of what repolarization is without getting right into all the details of it.

Lead evaluation

 * The Lead looks good to me but something that could be elaborated on later on in the paper is about the absolute refractory period.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content added directly relates to repolarization, how it occurs, and why it occurs.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date. This topic is not one that would easily change over time unless new studies came out elaborating on it or disproving some of it, so the factual basis of repolarization is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Again, the absolute refractory period seems to be one topic that is missing. Also, under the section of Ventricular Repolarization, pharmaceuticals that have the effect of repolarization are mentioned but not elaborated on.

Content evaluation

 * The absolute refractory period should be incorporated somewhere in the article or in its own section. Also, under Ventricular Repolarization, it might be a good idea to elaborate on pharmaceuticals that produce the same effect as repolarization. That way, there isn't a statement that isn't explained.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, all the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Since the article provides a very neutral viewpoint, there are no viewpoints overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The tone and balance of this article is very equal. Any content added should follow this format and keep the article as neutral as possible. This way, only facts are presented and not specific perspectives.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all new content has been correctly cited in the references.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is a thorough list of sources (20 so far) that cover a variety of subtopics related to repolarization.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, there are recent sources. There is even one source that was just published on September 25.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, various links do work. I even tried the September 25 link and that works as well.

Sources and references evaluation

 * Sources/references look good to me, and besides adding more sources as more information is added to the article, there is not really anything that needs to be changed within the actual current list.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is well-written. Everything is concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I did not come across 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?
 * Most of the content is well-organized, but I think that the first section should not be Deviations from Normal Repolarization. To me, the mechanisms of normal repolarization should be presented first, and then deviations. That way, a reader who might not know much about repolarization gets confused about why deviations are considered deviations.

Organization evaluation

 * Overall, the organization is fine to me but I would slightly change the organization of the sections. Specifically, moving the Deviations from Normal Repolarization more towards the end of the article.

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
N/A: No images or media added.

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
N/A: This article is not a new article to me because it has been in existence since 2011.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, information added in Ventricular Repolarization has served to elaborate on the topic and is relevant to the topic thus improving quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added are that it applies repolarization to a broader concept of how it is utilized in the body. This gives the article an in-depth look into the mechanism of repolarization as well as how it contributes to bigger processes.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe by elaborating on some of the vague concepts mentioned but not really explained.

Overall evaluation

 * Overall, the article looks well-drafted. There are a few minor changes that I think should be made before adding more information, as well as elaborating on information already present in the article.