User:DTM2020UPRC/Physiology/Alanis C. Santos Alvira Peer Review

General info

 * I'm reviewing the work of DTM2020UPRC.
 * User:DTM2020UPRC/Physiology

Lead evaluation

 * The lead of this article includes an introductory sentence that helps the reader to understand the subject of the article in the first place. overall, it's a clear full lead. I recommend checking for grammatical errors and including a brief description of what the article will be about.

Content evaluation

 * The contributions you want to add to the article are consistent with the topic and are information that really contributes to the growth of the article. I like that my peer wants to contribute to multiple sections of the article. My peer has removed a few sources but in this part, I recommend looking for reliable sources in "Medical Reliable Sources" since the topic that is being worked its human health. I recommend this because most of the sources used for the contributions come from web pages that end in ".com". Finally, I recommend treating the Wikipedia gaps, talking about the role of women in physiology. I gave myself the task of looking for important women in the history of physiology, some women that can be talked about in this article are: Edith Büllbring (woman who contributed significant advances to the research of smooth muscle), Angélique Arvanitaki (neurophysiologist who did great discoveries within neurophysiology) and Christine Ladd-Franklin (did research on colors in vision and was a great advocate for women's rights).

Tone and Balance evaluation

 * The content to be added complies with the wikipedia neutrality rules.

Sources and References evaluation

 * Most of the sources used in the article are not completely reliable. I recommend looking for new sources in Google Scholar or in the files provided by the university. Also see the training "Editing health and psychology topics", which can help you in finding good sources. I attach the link to the training: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/editing-medical-topics

Organization evaluation

 * The organization of new contributions is correct and clear. My only recommendation is to check for grammatical errors.

Images and Media evaluation

 * My peer so far has not added images to the article.

Overall impressions

 * Overall, my peer is doing very well with contributions to his article. The only problems that I highlight are the lack of coverage of Wikipedia gaps and the lack of reliable sources, for these two problems, attach my recommendations in the development of this peer review.