User:Pmoszczy/Basal dendrite/Ajain18 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? (provide username)
 * Mhuda25, Pmoszczy, Beleneo, Hjetter, Belltrinity1, Capeters6
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Basal dendrite

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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, there is only one section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, there is one section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content belongs, it is on the topic

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, no opinions are given
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no opinions
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints are undeveloped and need more details
 * 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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they seem to
 * Are the sources current? They are
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links I checked did work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise yes, but underdeveloped. It is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Np
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are no sections, just one paragraph plus a short line.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is more complete now but needs more.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is a good start but needs elaboration.
 * How can the content added be improved? The points mentioned need further development, and there are no subtitles. More sections should be added to elaborate on the lead.

Overall evaluation
The article has a good start of ideas, but needs more elaboration on all points made. Some images added may also help.