User:Eackley42/Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1/Anconne 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)
  • Eackley42
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • It does not seem to reflect the new content. There is no mention of mutations.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • It is not a concise, but it does seem to describe the article's topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It is does not discuss the major section about mutations within the Lead.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, it does discuss some of the topics in the article
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise, but it does not have enough details.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • If mutations were added to article by Eackley42 then it does seem relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • As far as I can tell the information does seem relevant.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There seems to be some images that could have been added to help with the information.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content does seem neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, possibly to seem that the Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1 is medically relevant.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • It does not seem that there are viewpoints over/underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The content added does not seem to persuade the reader one way or the other

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • The content does seem to be from reliable secondary sources of information.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are not as thorough as the they could be it seems that some of the literature of the topic is possibly needed.
• Are the sources current?
  • It seems that the sources could be more updated, the last information included was from 2010.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links do work for some of this information.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, it's very clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • It only includes a couple and they are not as comprehensive.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • There aren't that many captions and they do not seem to fully explain images
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • As far as I can tell.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • The images that are provided are in an appealing layout.

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 it does seem that this is supported by secondary sources independent of the subject.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • It is fairly exhaustive however there does seem to be more current literature that could be included 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?
  • Yes it does seem to follow the same pattern as the family of transport is included in article.
• 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?
  • If there was content added yes.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Show the limitations of the Sodium/glucose cotransporter 1.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Add more images and more current information.