User:Svrabaya/Cell physiology/Tyetenekian1 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) Svrabaya, Jamiechiu8, Crystalchoy and Vaniabessos
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Cell physiology and the sandbox link: User:Svrabaya/Cell physiology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated yet, but I think what they have written in the sandbox would benefit the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the topic sentence is clear and to the point and a description of what cell physiology is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead does address all the topics that are included in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead includes information that is not presented throughout the article but in the sandbox they stated that they wanted to remove the paragraphs from the lead that talk about the other information not presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is not concise and I think gives too much irrelevant information or should be created into a new topic section. However, the group wanted to remove those paragraphs which I think would make the lead more concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the topics they want to add are relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content they are added does belong and it will make the article better once added. I think the content is good and other information relating to the topic can be easily found by clicking the link to a different article, that way this article does not have so much information to the point where it can be difficult to digest.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the topic that is added is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No the article does not seem to present the information in a biased way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I think the article does a good job of presenting the information in a clear and concise manner, after changes are made to the lead, and the information is presented in a way that just states the facts.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article simply presents the information without persuading the reader one way or the other.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: I think the tone and balance are good in this article, it does not show bias. However, I think the grammar could use some improvement in the lead after they remove the extra paragraphs. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The group added 3 references throughout the article which made the article quality improve. However, I think a couple extra sources can also be added to back up the information further.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources they chose are thorough and appropriate for the article.
 * Are the sources current? The sources the group is adding are current. The sources already in the article are also current, except one is slightly older from 1998, but other than that one they are all current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I clicked on multiple links and they all worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well written for the most part, just some grammar issues that make it confusing to read. The groups additions will also make the article more clear and easier to understand while providing good information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, I found some grammatical errors in the lead, however the group said they wanted to remove paragraphs from the lead so they should just double check the grammar after they make those edits. The rest of the article did not have any grammatical errors but at times was a little bit of an awkward read and slightly confusing so it could be changed to make it a smoother read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content they are adding is well organized and the topics in their article are well organized and broken down into sections that contain links to other websites where more information can be found on certain topics that the article does not need to go more in depth about. The information presented in the article is in a clear and organized manner.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes one picture that shows the different types of physiology's. It does not provide that much information but it does the different physiology's and how they all have cell physiology incorporating in them.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image does not caption, I don't see plans in the sandbox to add a caption to the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes, the article does have 2-3 reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The resources list is not very extensive and could use additional resources to improve the quality.
 * 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? Yes, the article pattern is similar to that of others.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I think the edits that the group wants to make will improve the quality of the article and the information will benefit the content of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the elaboration between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is very important and makes the article easier to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the content can be improved by adding additional sources to improve the quality of the content. As well as adding another picture with a caption as well as adding a caption to the additional picture.

==== Overall evaluation: I think the edits the group wants to make will improve the quality of the article. I think they should also add a couple more additional sources and possibly a picture with a caption. ====