User:DKitch21/PLCG1/Wickypears 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?
 * DKitch21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:DKitch21/sandbox

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, it includes changes that she will make
 * 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, the cancer section that is added is specifically good
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is concise and information that is added is relevant.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, resources used are current
 * 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?
 * no, NA

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes her tone is good. anything I found to be non-neutral is added on her talk page.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, no biases are shown
 * 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, unbiased

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes citation are good and clear
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, good job. Lots of review articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? NA
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes, good links

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, it is not heavy on modifiers
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no, any errors have been corrected or are mentioned on my talk page
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, improves overall organization very well.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, I love the added image
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes, they are created by the author
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes, it is added at a good point and adds a lot.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes, increased the quality a ton
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the strengths are the graphic lays out the purpose of PLCgamma in a very clear way. I also think that the cancer section adds a lot.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Some of the language is heavy on research specific language which I addressed in my comments on the sandbox talk page.