User:Akotaco27/Repolarization/Jpeloquin17 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? 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?
 * 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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Overall I believe that the content presented is neutral and precise to the point, which I think enhances the article rather well.
 * 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?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?
 * May I recommend adding images that can enhance the understanding of the topic. As a specific example, your group can include an image of an action potential and specifically highlight or label the section of the action potential that is repolarizing.
 * 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 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
May I recommend adding images and/or graphs to enhance the understanding of the topic. As a specific example, your group can include an image of an action potential and specifically highlight or label the section of the action potential that is repolarizing. Overall I believe that the content presented is neutral and precise to the point, which I think enhances the article rather well. A neutral tone creates a great balance that is not biased or geared towards one opinion (this topic is not very opinion based anyways, but the point still stands). I do not see any outstanding grammar errors or spelling errors. In the bibliography, the list of sources seem a bit excessive for the small size of the article itself. May I recommend going through the sources and check to see if your group can use the same source for multiple statements. This will cut down the large bibliography to match the available literature in the article. I believe that the article matches and meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements - this article is supported by 2-3 reliable sources for the subject discussed.