User:Ekrodge/Semipermeable membrane/Mbnugent Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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
 * 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?
 * concise

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?
 * yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * yes
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * yes
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * yes

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * 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?
 * yes
 * 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.)
 * no
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

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?
 * no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes



General info
Ekrodge https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semipermeable_membrane&action=edit
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semipermeable_membrane&action=edit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Punctuation corrections made assist in the improvement of article flow and clarity, a small but valuable detail that can change the way a reader processes information. It appears that there was a dead link embedded in this article that was not fixed by the student, but by a citation bot that edited afterwards. This is something to look out for and ensure that all links are functioning and/or leading a reader to the proper information. Overall the edits made were useful and functional.