User:Klkelly02/Sodium in biology/Zverdin Peer Review

General info
Klkelly 02
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead
Guiding questions:
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has been updated to reflect the content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes is it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * For the most part, the information that is present in the Lead is also present in the remainder of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, the Lead seems to be fairly concise about explaining the relevance of sodium in biology.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added about the sodium potassium pump, sodium-glucose symporter, and CFTR is relavant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content added is very much up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

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 there do not seem to be any viewpoints that overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added is soley informative.

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, all of the sources are reliable and thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes all of the sources added by my peer appear to be relatively current, within the past 20 years or so.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content is well-written and is easy to read.
 * 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 the information added is very well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes all of the images by my peer look incredible.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the new sections that were added to improve the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added is very thorough and easy to read with excellent images.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that more content can be added in general to the article; however, the content added by my peer definitely improved the quality of the article.