User:Grantsuth/Osmosis/Smieczkowski Peer Review

General info
Grantsuth
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, there has been an update in the lead.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There isn't really a lead in the article. The first two paragraphs give a summary of what osmosis is before going into the history and other important information. However, I think that this topic needs a significant introduction before getting into the whole article.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not have a brief description of the major sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all of the information in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think that it has more than a normal lead, so there could be information that could be cut out.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, they added information that is about the future of osmosis that isn't already in the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the article contains all of the information it needs.

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is all facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it just focuses on facts known about osmosis.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the editor does a good job of keeping the viewpoints equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there is no attempt to persuade the reader in one way or the other.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the new content is backed up by research articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there are many different types of sources used.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A lot of the sources are from 2012 and earlier, so they are not very current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work.

Organization:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is concise, but contains the information needed for the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are none that I can notice.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think that the factors and variation sections were a bit confusing organization wise because there are separate articles on the topics, but other than that I thought that the organization was well done.

Images and Media:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the images show what osmosis is for people who don't know.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the captions are concise and to the point.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The second and third images are right next to each other which I think could be adjusted to be more separate.

Overall Questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I think that the content added improved the article, but the article was already well developed before editing it, so it was hard to add more relevant information for this topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Adding the future developments in osmosis is a strength because it shows how osmosis will continue to be used to improve practices in the real world.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that the information added doesn't need to be improved.