User:Cmbio401/Vacuole/Cestfini001 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) Cmbio401
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Vacuole sandbox draft

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, improvements could briefly introduce the added content that there are different types of vacuoles.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The topic is clearly stated, it is a little wordy, but that may be necessary if the authors wish to introduce all organisms that have vacuoles in the first sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Some improvements could be completed to describe the added sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It seems reasonably concise.

Lead evaluation
Good lead. In working with many authors on Wikipedia, it is understandable that you are being considerate and not rewriting everything. However the lead is a little wordly and may contain minute details not needed for basic understanding. Additionally there is no mention of the different types of vacuoles, a lovey addition you made. Consider hyperlinking organic and inorganic molecules and adding a brief sentence on types of vacuoles.

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? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not as I understand it

Content evaluation
Added content seems relevant and up to date.

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
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone reads neutral and informative without bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some sources are primary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? A quick search seems to indicate that they are.
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? unsure
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes, although some are not open source making validation for individuals without access difficult.

Sources and references evaluation
Added sources seem good and the links you added work. Check your citation of "Rab8a regulates the exocyst-mediated kiss-and-run discharge of the Dictyostelium contractile vacuole". If you wish to keep this citation, as it is a primary source, you need to manually fix the citation since it did not import the date information correctly

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The writing is clear and well written, but it is a little science jargony. Sometimes this is unavoidable but consider simplifying the language when possible.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? This was, in my opinion, the best change to this article. The restructuring was very useful to the overall clarity of information. This would be something I would consider when editing my own article.

Organization evaluation
The organization was spot on, great work!!

Images and Media - NA, no images added
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?

For New Articles Only - NA, not a news article
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? NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? NA
 * 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? NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the changes to the article improved the overall quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The sub sectioning of information is so so helpful.
 * How can the content added be improved? More secondary, open source, citations would improve this article.

Overall evaluation
Great content additions and thoughtful organization. You have added depth and interest to this article which will be helpful for future readers and allow others to expand this content in a clear way in the future. Overall great job! Cestfini001 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)