User:Kate.Rosenbaum/Humoral immunity/KidAd Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Kate.Rosenbaum)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kate.Rosenbaum/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Instead of directly editing her article, Kate has proposed changes to the article in her sandbox (above). Based on Kate's proposed revision to content related to B-cell receptors (BCR's), I assume that content will be tweaked in the lede.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lede includes a satisfactory introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lede is currently separated into three paragraphs. While this satisfied MOS:LEADLENGTH, it could be trimmed down into two paragraphs because the second one is only two lines long.
 * The lede is currently separated into three paragraphs. While this satisfied MOS:LEADLENGTH, it could be trimmed down into two paragraphs because the second one is only two lines long.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The proposed content is directly related to the topic and expands upon material in the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * None of the proposed content stands out compared to the content already in the article. It may be helpful to see the article after the information to compare drafts.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A
 * N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Proposed content satisfies WP:NPOV.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I did not notice any claims that appear biased in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Seeing as the article's subject is not controversial or contested, there are no clear places to insert contentious viewpoints
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not that I noticed. See above.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * So far, Kate's proposed changes have not included new sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The Germans are very represented. I found that to be the same in researching sources for my article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * One source, here, appears to be entirely in German and from a possibly unreliable source. Med-serv.de has the look of a blog and has not been updated since 2018. Kate did not add this source, but she could find a replacement. Additionally, this source is a bit dubious. The source is linked to a "http://unipv.it/" url, which may indicate that the page was hosted by the University of Pavia in Italy. The source references, which leads me to believe that this may be an archived assignment.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The copyedits appear helpful.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it removed spelling and grammar errors.
 * 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 (N/A)


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the proposed changes are a step in the right direction for the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Changes to sentence structure and grammar are helpful for readability.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be expanded upon. Possibly add some sources or an image. Reviewed the sources already listed, as some may be unreliable. There is a citation in one of the headings. That can be removed. Also it may be helpful to add categories, as there is only one listed currently.