User:Pmoszczy/Basal dendrite/Luciannerosario 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) Pmoszczy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basal_dendrite&oldid=920329862

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, I couldn't tell what this specific user added to the article, however, the content added was very relevant and easy to read. I could easily understand the information within the article, but it definitely could be expanded.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I feel that the first two sentences of the lead do a good job summarizing what a basal dendrite is and its general function.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I don't believe so, there isn't really sections yet just one main one and then the references.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, there's only one main section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and easy to understand and also has neutral content.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, the content in the lead gives an overall understanding of what a basal dendrite is, which is helpful.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, however, I feel that more information and content could be added. The lead seems okay how it is, as it is concise, but the article needs other subdivisions or sections and once those are added then they should be briefly mentioned in the lead, to summarize the overall article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The start to a second paragraph about the study of genes related to basal dendrites seems a bit out of place, maybe it just needs more information or it could go into its own different section rather than the lead. It does seem that more information can be added about basal dendrites and also maybe a histological image of basal dendrites would be interesting and helpful for the readers to get a visual understanding.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, all the content is neutral and unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. I would just be careful with this issue if you go into the study of genes related to the basal dendrites further.
 * 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, I felt that the sources were reliable, maybe more sources can be added once more information is added especially about the study and if a histological image is added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes.
 * Are the sources current? yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes the links worked for me.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the information is concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The first paragraph in the lead has pretty good structure, but there are no broken down sections and the study of genes should maybe be in its own section.

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


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

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the article has more information, but I feel that it still needs quite a bit more if possible. Also, I feel that once more information is found it can be subdivided so that there are sections in the article instead of just the lead.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added was very clear and easy to read and gave a good general understanding on what basal dendrites are and their contribution to action potentials in neurons.
 * How can the content added be improved? Definitely add more to the last sentence of the article, it seems a bit out of place right now, possibly because it just needs more information so that it can properly add to the structure of the article and its relevance to the article.