User:Mbryan620/Precursor cell/CaitlynOwen Peer Review

General info
(Mbryan620)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Precursor cell:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * My peer did not change the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead introduces what the article is about and gives a brief definition of what a Precursor cell is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Partly, the Lead does not explicitly say there are multiple types of Precursor cells but does allude to their medical significance.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the Lead discusses what a blastoma is but never revisits it in the body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead could be revised to be more concise, but it does an excellent job of introducing the topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content adds details on the types of Precursor cells and what their function is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Only two sources were written within the last five years, so no.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * This Wikipedia page needs to include information on the regulation of Precursor cell differentiation and controversies and ethical considerations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, my peer wrote the information in a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The only claim present is that a large amount of information still needs to be discovered, but this is not overly biased.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Reliable secondary sources back up all the new information added.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the content matches the attached source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they are all peer-reviewed scholarly articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Half of the sources added are from the last five years, but the other half must be updated.
 * 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.)
 * I found a surplus of peer-reviewed articles outside the eight that the report cites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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?
 * The content is mostly grammatically correct, except for a few unnecessary commas.
 * 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 is an image showing a precursor cell under a microscope and one labeling the crucial features of a precursor cell.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they both provide appropriate information for the picture.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the new content provided details on the significance of precursor cells and how they function in the body.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The new information is laid out in a well-organized way and is information while remaining concise.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The author should add more sections, providing information on the regulation of precursor cells and the controversies surrounding stem cell research and therapy.