User:Svrabaya/Cell physiology/RnGC444 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

 * User:Svrabaya/Cell physiology
 * 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Lead has been updated by deleting the three paragraphs underneath the Lead. The Lead does contain an introductory sentence and for the most part describes the article's topic.I believe the Lead does describe the article's major sections but it does not include any information but instead is made more concise by eliminating the paragraphs that it deems irrelevant to the article so it's not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and up to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral and does not seem to be heavily biased toward a particular position. Seemingly no use of emotional language and just tries to inform the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new content does seem to be backed by a reliable secondary source of information at which it reflects on the topic of the article. It seems the links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well written since they restructured parts of the content and included more information to make it more in depth such as expanding on the transportation of ions across cell membranes; they decided to go with paragraph form instead of bullet form which still works as they are expanding with more information in the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images from what I can see from the draft.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article does feel more concise and the biggest strength from the content added is how they expanded the content while keeping it organized such as titling the information under the respective type of cell. To improve the article I think the article could still take advantage of bullet points to make the reader pay attention to the main points of certain parts of the article while still keeping the paragraphs to expand the information it is trying to convey.