User:Bulkydeer/Organic cation transport protein/Egutke Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature 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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Bulkydeer

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Bulkydeer/Organic cation transport protein
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Organic cation transport protein

Evaluate the drafted changes

I know we're early in the editing process, but have you considered how to adjust the lead to account for the new material you're adding? You might not need to since it seems like you plan to mostly contribute to the table, but it might be necessary for one reason or another.

I'm wondering if it might be possible to add some information in a subsection that could explain some of the stuff in the lead.

How much of the table are you wanting to fill out? Currently there's a lot of gaps.

Content you plan to add certainly seems to have a neutral tone. Rather hard to be biased on this topic lol

All links seem to work. I'm wondering if you could provide even more up-to-date articles, as this seems to be something that is not very well-known and probably is undergoing a lot of current research.

Hard to evaluate content added, since right now you mostly just have a plan for what to do. I'll look at this more during our next peer review.

Have you considered what image you want to add? It seems like maybe adding an image of the structure you describe could be a good thing to do.

Not a new article.

Overall, I think this is a good start! This is definitely is helping this article be more complete. One more thing I would have you consider is does the structure apply to all of these transporters or just a few? If it's just a few, it might be worth your time finding more information on the other structures, as having information on just a single or several transporters might seem pretty incomplete. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions or comments!

Updated peer review 12/6 (requested by author):

It doesn't seem like you need to add anything to the lead of the section, but if you make any changes in the table that you think merit changes it might not be a bad idea. Maybe provide a brief description of the table in the lead?

Information is certainly relevant and seems up-to-date. I'm interested to see how much of the table you'll fill out, as there are a lot of empty boxes here. Some of this might be unknown though, I'm definitely not super knowledgeable in this area.

Content is neutral and unbiased, as expected from a scientific article.

I wonder if there is some more recent literature that could fill in some of the gaps in the table. Links seem operational. There are a few sentences that don't have an associated article for substantiation.

Content is well-written and organized. No image added yet.

Overall, it is definitely starting to take shape. A few more modifications, including some that I listed above, will probably be necessary for completion and improvement. I'm impressed by the discussion of OCT structure.