User:Js3377/Calcium channel/Bio phys 568 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 edit

Whose work are you reviewing?

Js3377/Calcium channel

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Js3377/Calcium channel
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Calcium channel

Evaluate the drafted changes edit

General comments

I liked how you cleaned up the gene name part of the table, I think that was a good call
Your writing voice is great -- it's clear and professional, but not bogged down by excessive jargon or oversimplification. I'm not seeing any glaring spelling or grammatical errors. Some of your section titles have an extra [edit] in them and when published will show up as "Title [edit] [edit]", just so you're aware.
Don't forget to add citations!
I can see that you're thinking about the best way to present the information regarding voltage- vs ligand-gated calcium channels, and I like your approach so far. For what it's worth, I think anything that's not first and foremost a "calcium channel" should be put in bullet points or paragraph form -- anything that's not a table. (If I saw them in a table I'd probably assume I'm looking at additional calcium channel types, and would have to read more to understand that they're really other cation channels that also happen to permit calcium flow.)
In a similar vein to what I mentioned above, when I first started reading your section "Cation channels with calcium permittivity" I was confused about what... it was about? since the whole article is about channels permeable to calcium. Of course, after reading on for a couple more sentences I realized what you were talking about, but for the sake of clarity I think changing the section title slightly could go a long way. Some examples:
- "Other channels with calcium permittivity"
- "Other channels with calcium permeability"
- "Other channels permeable to calcium"
- "Other cation channels also permeable to calcium"
- etc

Nitpicky suggestions

"pH regulated" → "pH-regulated"
"these channels participate in action potentials" → (To what extent? I think adding a "...by ____" or even just an adverb after "participate" could make this clearer, without going into too much detail.)
If you want a cleaner look than bullet points (depending how in depth you're planning on going with the other cation channels) you might consider subheadings or even just bolding them.