User:AudraPlattsburgh/Cellular component/JBonz 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)
 * AudraPlattsburgh
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Cellular component

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?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

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

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 all viewpoints give detailed information
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, More sources were added to support the paper
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most current one is 2020, the most current one after that is 2008.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, each source has at least 2+ authors
 * 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?
 * No spelling or grammatical errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, very organized, information added did not interfere with the fluidity of the paper

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?
 * No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No

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?
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Not really, If content was added, there needs to be more.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It helps us understand certain specific things
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Need a little more detail, and Citations need to be added

Overall evaluation
It was a lot of good information that was added to this page. I would just add more to the prokaryote section. Only because you beefed up the Eukaryote, it would only make sense to add just as much information to "Prokaryotic Cells" section. Overall good job!