User:Eackley42/Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1/Anconne 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)
 * Eackley42
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It does not seem to reflect the new content. There is no mention of mutations.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It is not a concise, but it does seem to describe the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It is does not discuss the major section about mutations within the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does discuss some of the topics in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, but it does not have enough details.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * If mutations were added to article by Eackley42 then it does seem relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As far as I can tell the information does seem relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There seems to be some images that could have been added to help with the information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content does seem neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, possibly to seem that the Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1 is medically relevant.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It does not seem that there are viewpoints over/underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not seem to persuade the reader one way or the other

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content does seem to be from reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are not as thorough as the they could be it seems that some of the literature of the topic is possibly needed.
 * Are the sources current?
 * It seems that the sources could be more updated, the last information included was from 2010.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work for some of this information.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it's very clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It only includes a couple and they are not as comprehensive.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There aren't that many captions and they do not seem to fully explain images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I can tell.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images that are provided are in an appealing layout.

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 it does seem that this is supported by secondary sources independent of the subject.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * It is fairly exhaustive however there does seem to be more current literature that could be included on the subject.
 * 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 it does seem to follow the same pattern as the family of transport is included in article.
 * 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?
 * If there was content added yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Show the limitations of the Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add more images and more current information.