User:Jimmyjohnslaser/Ion transporter/Chocolatecalorimetry Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? - Jimmyjohnslaser
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jimmyjohnslaser/sandbox

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, it includes a definitions of a transporter
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but this would be useful. I didn't see much of a preface for the primary and secondary transporter sections although I did see a preface for the active transporter subsection. I did not see a preface for the "techniques for studying ion transporters" section
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead mentions facilitated diffusion, but I think that you are mentioning it their and then not planning on mentioning it in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that it could be a little more concise. There is some info that I think you could abbreviate and then expound upon in the sections.
 * Other - This sentence "This potential energy could then used by secondary pumps..." you may have missed a "be", "This potential energy could then be used by secondary pumps..."

Lead evaluation
- I thought your lead was great... I know you had some stuff to fix and a lot you needed to change haha. Just see my notes above. Also, I think that you could make it more clear that the article is about "ion transporters" and not just "transporters".

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? Not that I can see... it looks like something is going to be added under the "active transporter" subsection at some point
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
- As far as I can tell your content is up-to-date and relevant!

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

Tone and balance evaluation
- Great!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Link #9 does not work for me

Sources and references evaluation
- Check link for #9

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. This sentence "By tracking the conductance of the channels hypothesis can be tested to see how different..." is a little confusing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is the one I mentioned above in the lead. In this sentence, "Symporters such as the sodium glucose transporter and the Sodium-chloride symporter transport an ion with its concentration..." I think you could use some commas, "Symporters, such as the sodium glucose transporter and the Sodium-chloride symporter, transport an ion with its concentration..." In this sentence, "The channel are inserted into the artificial membrane with a micellar solution or with liposomes..." you could add an s onto "channel".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes! I think the organization is great.

Organization evaluation
- See notes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not yet
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

Images and media evaluation
- I know you were having trouble uploading your image. I still haven't figured it out but I will let you know as soon as I can. Since you made it yourself you won't have to worry about copyright.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely! You've done great with this.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think that you added good information that makes the article much more clear, especially for someone unfamiliar with the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? See notes in the above comments. Overall it's really great.

Overall evaluation
- As far as your question about the techniques, I think I would definitely talk about Patch Clamps since that seems to be the most common one from what I can see. I guess it wouldn't hurt to talk about all of them, but I don't think you need to. Maybe do Patch Clamps and one or two others?