User:Narvikvaren/Endoplasmic reticulum stress in beta cells/Chocolatecalorimetry 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? Narvikvaren
• Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Narvikvaren/sandbox&action=edit&section=1

Lead

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

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

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

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

Tone and Balance

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

Great tone and balance!

Sources and References

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

Sources looked great to me! Great job.

Organization

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

Images and Media

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

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

Overall impressions

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

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.