User:Hmwhite9/Fluid mosaic model/Willow44 Peer Review

General info Hmwhite9
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Peer review
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hmwhite changed a few words of the article but only that - no addition of sources or new information. Therefore I am doing a comprehensive peer review of the entire article.
 * Fluid mosaic model

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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 but could be more descriptive as to what the specific characteristics that it explains are.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead could benefit from improving clarity about what the sections in the article will be.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but could be refined for brevity without sacrificing clarity.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content seems comprehensive, however, specific information about lipid rafts and their significance could be added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article focuses on scientific content so there is no apparent connection to equity gaps.

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
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is informative without a persuasive agenda.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No there are several bits of information all throughout the article the are not directly linked to one of the sources. However all sources provided are reliable sources.
 * 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?
 * This topic is so highly researched that this page could likely benefit from use of more sources. It might be beneficial to include recent research lipid rafts.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Because this topic is so widely researched, the sources could be more diverse, including perspectives from a broader range of researchers.
 * 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.)
 * No all sources are peer reviewed.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked all links and there are no dead links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * 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
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are helpful pictures included that aid in understanding, however more photos of lipid bilayer as opposed to experiments on it might be more helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * No - I am guessing the editor in our class ultimately chose another article for his project so he did not add much to this one. Just a couple words.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Somewhat improved clarity
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added was fine, there isn't much to go off of though.