User:Dancer811/Peripheral membrane protein/Kemorri Peer Review

General info
Dancer811
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peripheral_membrane_protein&diff=prev&oldid=1174853278
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peripheral_membrane_protein&diff=prev&oldid=1174853278

Evaluate the drafted changes
No bibliography, outline, or draft has been created for this article at this time, though a reference has been added. I evaluated the current article.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no
 * 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? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's fairly concise

The lead does a good job at providing an explanation as to what peripheral membrane proteins are. It is clear and easy to read and a good opening for the rest of the introduction. While the introduction section is slightly detailed rather than brief, it does a good job at introducing what is to be discussed in the following paragraphs. All information mentioned in the introduction is expanded on later in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? (N/A)
 * Is the content added up-to-date? (N/A)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? (N/A)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

The content currently included in the article is somewhat up to date, with many of the sources being from the past 20 or so years. However, the article continues to be edited by other users and updated through this current month. It doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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? (N/A)

The content included is neutral and not biased. No viewpoints are over or underrepresented. In fact, I think the organization of this article is one of its strengths and sets the article up to include a good balance of information / different aspects of the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? (see below)
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? somewhat
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) This article already contains sources from peer-reviewed articles
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

This article has a comprehensive list of reliable sources. Many of the sources in this article are primary sources, though there are some secondary sources as well. The content accurately reflects what is included in these sources. The sources are somewhat current, many published within the last 20 years. They are also written by a large variety of authors / scientists. All links included work.

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? Very few
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

The content is very well-written. It's concise and easy to read. The information is presented is a logical order which also aids in the article being comprehendible. The information is organized into different sections and subsections when necessary, which is both visually appealing and makes the material easier to mentally process when reading. There are few to no grammatical errors.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? (N/A)
 * What are the strengths of the content added? (N/A)
 * How can the content added be improved? (see below)

This article provides a great overview of peripheral membrane proteins. The information included is organized into a logical format with an extensive list of sources backing it. One way this article may be improved is adding some more recent sources to ensure the information included is up to date.