User:Everdin26/Cell division/Klkelly02 Peer Review

General info
User:Everdin26/Cell division/Klkelly02 Peer Review
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, there were sentences added to the Lead about what the user added.
 * 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 is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the additions of sections describing DNA damage repair in the cell cycle are crucial because of the role damage plays in affecting the checkpoints of the cycle.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, almost all of the information came from sources from within the last several decades and within the 21st century.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it lack bias and simply walks through the processes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there's not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No there's not.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, every 3 sentences that was added there is a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there are multiple different sources from various scholarly journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most are from within the last few years and some are from the early 2000s.
 * 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?
 * From what I can tell the content walks through a concise step by step process of cell division and and what damage leads to and additionally the addition of prometaphase helps to with the connection between the previously described prophase and metaphase.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes they are.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the drawing of the two p53 pathways is well labeled and organized.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes as it was drawn by the user.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes they are.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes I think so because I think that damaged DNA is a crucial check to the cell cycle.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The large section on DNA damage.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Overall I really enjoyed the additions and I don't think it could be improved further except for a picture of pro-metaphase but that may be excessive.

Overall evaluation
There were two additions to the article that were well defined in the lead that enhanced the benefit to the reader immensely. Both helped to clarify baseline information with the DNA damage section going deeper to create a better understanding.