User:SheilaAlbertson/Subthreshold membrane potential oscillations/Fnujessica 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? Sheila Albertson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Subthreshold membrane potential oscillations

Lead
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? Need clearer definition of the terms "Subthreshold membrane potential oscillations" at the beginning to inform the readers what the term will affiliated with.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there are attempts of explanations for how the neurons function and how it is related to the subthreshold membrane potential.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is still being updated so they are up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. The contents are relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the contents are subjective as they are scientific information that are bias-free.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. All points are presented in a good balance.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The content is simply an informative piece.

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.
 * Are the sources current? The content are rather current with the earliest reference material being published in 2011
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a couple of errors. At the second line, the third sentence started with a small "h" and "he threshold" do not make sense so it should perhaps be "The threshold". Some areas are missing correct punctuation marks.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are two main parts to the article. The first is introduction to the action potentials and the second is the overview. Hence, it is well-organized.

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


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

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? Yes it made the article more complete and it would be better if there is a thorough explanation for the term.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article is concise and manage to deliver on the information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Including image would also help readers visualize the concept better.