User:Grantsuth/Osmosis/Dancer811 Peer Review

General info
Grantsuth
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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
 * 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? could be a little more concise

The introduction includes the main points of osmosis, but there is a lot of information. It could possibly be reduced to just cover some main points, and then relocate the rest of the information to another section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? not entirely since there are some sources that are very dated (1826, 1960. etc).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, not biased
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no, pretty even layout
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, fair and factual information presented

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no, since some sources are outdated, there could be some errors as science and technology is always changing
 * 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? no, some sources are too old to be trusted completely
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, some diversity
 * 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.) better sources could be used, ones are more aligned with science today
 * 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? easy for the reader to read
 * 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

 * I don't know if the pictures present in the article were already there or placed by the lead, but they are strategically placed where the reader can get a visual reinforcement of the information.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, the article seems more put together.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? by adding more information in different sections, the reader gets a thorough and wide coverage of information regarding osmosis
 * How can the content added be improved? some more visuals could be added to the last few sections, or even adding a chart that summarizes some of the main details about the different cell responses might improve the article. Overall, the article is pretty solid.