User:Mbryan620/Precursor cell/MatthewGuareschi Peer Review

General info
Mbryan620
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Precursor cell
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

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
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?No, sections of the article are not described in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is nicely crafted and brief, straight to the point.

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?no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?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
 * 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?Most of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source
 * 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?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
 * 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.)
 * 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?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 it has a couple
 * Are images well-captioned?no
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?no

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?I believe the content added has made the article more complete. It improved the quality and also flows better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?The images added increase understanding of the material. Additions also increased the flow of the article and made it a smoother read.