User:Svrabaya/Cell physiology/Cassiepark 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? Cell Physiology Draft by  Svrabaya, Jamiechiu8, Crystalchoy, and Vaniabessos
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Svrabaya/Cell physiology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, they have added a citations to sentence of the lead that are lacking sources to back their claims. In addition, they shortened the lead so that it is more concise and functions as a lead instead of a body paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes. It provides a brief definition of what cell physiology is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it offers a sentence that provides an introduction of the topics that will be explained later on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no. The information prefaced in the lead can be found in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is concise, but there should be more than one sentence that prefaces the rest of the article and its contents.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. They used sources from biology textbooks that explain the topic of cell physiology.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * One source is from 2017 but the other is from 2006. However, textbooks usually do not change much over the years so it is fine.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is nothing that does not belong, but they should add images that contrast eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * They maintain a neutral position throughout their draft without over representing a certain perspective.
 * 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?
 * Yes. They used textbooks.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They are textbooks and contain significant and essential information that explains this topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * one source is from 2017 and the other is from 2006, which can be improved.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the concisely explain cellular processes without making it too complicated or simplified.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No there are no grammatical errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes they used headers and sub headers to outline their draft and corresponding information.

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


 * There are no added images to the article.

Overall evaluation
The draft cut out a lot of irrelevant or redundant information that can be found in other wikipedia pages. Thus, they solely focus on information that only their page can contain. In addition, they briefly explain cellular processes to a point that introduces them and encourages further inspection of them in other articles. One improvement they can work on is adding images to the article.