User:Hayeonc/Rhoptry/Ekrodge Peer Review

General info
(Hayeonc)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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:

The lead is very direct. It clearly and concisely states what the article is about early in the introductory paragraph.

Content:

The content itself is very short but is relevant to the topic and up-to-date to my knowledge. The processes that are mentioned in the article could be expanded on a bit more if the subject itself was lacking in information.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is very neutral with no grammatical errors that I know of. It does not attempt to sway the reader any way on the topic of rhoptry.

Organization:

The article isn't sectioned off into different topics but the information that is there is concise and direct for the reader to be able to understand.

Images and Media:

There is an image in the article that does enhance the understanding of what the article is actually about. It does adhere to Wikipedia's image policies as far as I know.

Sources and References:

There are only a few references, but still enough to adhere to Wikipedia's notability policies. While it could be expanded on the references that are used are reliable.

Overall Impression:

I think that gaps have been filled by this article, especially concerning the classification of rhoptry under protists. More information could always be added but the information that is present is reliable and helpful to any readers looking to learn more about rhoptry.