Wikipedia:Peer review/Endomembrane system/archive1

Endomembrane system

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in learning what I can do to achieve g.a. status. Where should I add content? Is the language well written? Any suggestion or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, VivaLaLacy (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A few points, hopefully with this and Ruhrfisch's comments you'll have what you need to work on. Overall it's very good work, keep it up. You could get this to featured level even if you wanted, it's not terribly far from it. 1) The lead section should be about 3 paragraphs for an article this size, though I see why you've held it together. Perhaps you could justify as few as 2 paragraphs, split the way I did for example. But the second paragraph should probably be expanded. 2) The article has a heavy focus on the function of each organelle, what about structure? This really isn't my area, but I'd assume the Endomembrane system is really the membranes themselves not the organelles. Try to focus more on the function of the membranes and especially add more on the structure of them. Unfortunately that might mean reducing some of the organelle function material. Some of the sections are better at this than others. 3) It is referenced pretty well over all, but it's a little uneven. For example the Plasma membrane section is short on them and various other paragraphs are as well. Another example, the sentence "The golgi apparatus is known as the packing and shipping department for the cell." could be covered by the reference at the end of the paragraph, but since there's not really a way to denote if that is for a sentence or paragraph, I thought I'd ask. That's awfully colloquial and I'd actually be surprised if it was technically true that it was known as that by most people even if the analogy is apt. 4) Expand the vesicles section. - Taxman Talk 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of Taxman's comments above, and also think this is fairly close to GA and could be FA with some work. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading this, I kept thinking that it would make sense to organize the article a little differently. I would start with a section on membranes and explain what they are composed of and how they function before launching into descriptions on the various organelles. In a similar vein there is no obvious link to membrane / cell membrane in the lead.
 * Captions needed (second image of nucleus has no caption) or need to be expanded (third image has numbered points to 11, but caption stops at number 7).
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. If you want to make all the figures bigger (probably OK), then make them a uniform width.
 * Biggest problem I see with this making GA is a lack of references in some places. For example the middle paragraph of Nuclear envelope or the first paragraph for ER have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Also per WP:CITE, references come directly AFTER punctuation (no spaces between), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * I read for comprehension, not to proofread. The language is good overall, but needs to be polished - for example I recall "nuclear envelopes" where it seemed the possessive "nuclear evekople's" was meant