User:Pumwi23/Muscle contraction/Jwiggler Peer Review

Peer review 1 (no article existed yet)

It looks like you haven't begun working on your article yet, or at least you haven't moved it into the sandbox I need to be looking at! Just make sure you either start the edits or move your edits into the sandbox attached to the wikiproject page (it is not your personal sandbox, which I was confused about at first). If you have questions just ask me!

Whose work are you reviewing?
Pumwi23

Link to draft you're reviewing

 * Pumwi23/Muscle contraction

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

 * Muscle contraction

Notes on your ideas for article changes:
I think your additions are good. It's nice to show what happens to end the contraction and lead to muscle relaxation

Have you found an image to add yet? A decent place might be to describe eccentric contraction. The current article uses a lot of space to describe this type of contraction. A good image might help to reduce the word count of this part in future changes.

Is there any information as to slow vs fast relaxation? You are definitely adding good info, but it might be nice to explain (maybe somewhere else) the respective benefits of slow or fast relaxation.

Notes on the article itself:
I think a really important thing to add would be an index or table of contents on the side. I don't understand well the order of the information, and it feels like some clarification would go a long way. This would also make it easier to organize the paragraphs into a better order, as things are thrown together kind of confusingly.

The article definitely has a lot of good images already included. They line up well with the info being presented and help readers to visualize what is happening to the muscle.

Questions
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- I think it just felt too long without a good index/table of contents

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

- it felt neutral

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- I don't think so. This is a fairly well understood topic.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

- I checked through all 48 sources and only found 2 potential problems.

- 26. Khurana, Indu (2006). "Characteristics of muscle excitability and contractility". Textbook Of Medical Physiology (1st ed.). Elsevier. pp. 101–2. (doesn't have any link)

- 6. Bullock, John; Boyle, Joseph; Wang, Michael B. (2001). "Muscle contraction". NMS Physiology. Vol. 578 (4th ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. pp. 37–56. (doesn't have any link)

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

- good references are used

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

- look at my notes about your additions. I did have a couple of ideas.