User:WeepingBritney/Muscle prof review

Quality as Teaching Aid

 * Is the level of this article appropriate for junior- and senior-level undergraduates? If not, what level of reader (or range of levels) would it be appropriate for?

Yes


 * Is the topic of the article presented in a logical sequence?

Yes


 * Would you recommend this article for your undergraduate students? If not, why not?

Yes

Quality as Summary of the Topic

 * Does the article cover its topic completely?

No. It missed a key aspect of muscle biology, remodeling. It does cover atrophy but not deeply into either hypertrophy or muscle satellite cells which are myonuclei that repopulate damages muscle fibers with new genetic information and rebuild the fibers.


 * Are the basic concepts and terminology of the topic introduced?

Yes


 * Is the amount of detail appropriate for the length of the article?

No it was well done.


 * Are there any glaring errors, omissions or misleading statements?

No


 * How precise and/or quantitative is the article?

It could go more in depth but the coverage but for its length it is very well done.


 * Is the article up-to-date? If not, when would this article have been a current review of its topic?

Yes but it is more coverage for a text than a current review. Current reviews are in the area of cell biology and physiology.


 * Is the historical development of the topic covered?

No not at all. The work of AV Hill (nobel prize in physiology and medicine for the sliding filament theory on muscle contraction) is not covered in sufficient detail.

Readability

 * Is the writing clear and well-organized?

yes


 * Does the article have good flow?

yes


 * Is the article redundant anywhere?

no

Figures

 * Are the figures clear, and do they help explain the topic?

Yes


 * Are the figures consistent with each other and with the text?

yes


 * Do the figures have any exceptional features, such as being three-dimensional?

No but conceptually they are accurate.