Jump to content

User:Narvikvaren/Endoplasmic reticulum stress in beta cells/Chocolatecalorimetry Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review

[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It looks like you mention diabetes in the intro but not in the rest
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes

Lead evaluation

[edit]

I like what you added to the introduction. It made it a lot more engaging and i felt like I had a better foundation on the product. I like that you brought up diabetes as it made it applicable.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Looks great

Content evaluation

[edit]

Your content looked great to me. As far as I could tell everything seemed clear and up to date.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
  • 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

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Great tone and balance!

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
  • Are the sources current? Yes
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Sources looked great to me! Great job.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could see
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is very well done

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

Yes the image is very clear and easy to follow. Great job!

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
  • What are the strengths of the content added? I think that you added a ton to this article and it is 10x better than it was before. You turned it into something with more substance.
  • How can the content added be improved? I mean it really looks great. In the Resolution of ER stress section there are a lot of acronyms that make it kind of hard to understand but you provide links to them or definitions so I think it's fine.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

This looks so good! It is definitely a very well done finished product. Great job and I hope you get a great grade on this.