User:Ekrodge/Semipermeable membrane/Zverdin Peer Review

General info
Ekrodge
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Semipermeable membrane
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Semipermeable membrane

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead does appear to some content added by my peer; however, more content about membrane composition should be mentioned in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes is it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it does, however, information about reverse osmosis should be added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * For the most part, the information that is present in the Lead is also present in the remainder of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, the Lead seems to be fairly concise about explaining the semipermeable membrane in general.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added appears to be relevant to the semipermeable membrane, as it explains membrane composition.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content in the article is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

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 there do not seem to be any viewpoints that overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content in this article is informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes it seems to be.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not all of the sources seem to be reliable. I think some more information from peer reviewed articles and established scientific journals should be added.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes all of the sources in this article are current, with the exception of one which is from 1964.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content is fairly well written, it should have a little more detail though.
 * 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 the information seems to be very well organized with different headings and subheadings. However, there is not much organization required for such a short article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but the one image is a little confusing to follow. There should be more images to enhance the understandingof semipermeable membranes even further.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one image is well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There is only one image that seems appealing.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I would say that the information added about membrane composition does enhance the overall quality of the article, but more information needs to be added to make the article complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added about membrane composition is very easy to read and is very thorough in explaining membrane composition.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that more content can be added to expand upon the topic of the semipermeable membrane. I think the importance of the semipermeable membrane could be explained in more detail and the fluid mosaic model can be explained in greater detail.