User:Jimmyjohnslaser/Ion transporter/ExasperatedOctopus Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Jimmyjonslaser
• User:Jimmyjohnslaser/sandbox

Lead

Lead evaluation

The lead has been improved significantly, I like how you've improved it and made it clearer. I think it adds an overall cohesiveness to the section with what you've put in. It's concise and doesn't add anything that isn't already there, so I think you're good.

Content

Content evaluation

The content seems relevant, up to date, and pretty on topic overall. It isn't messing with equity gaps or anything, so I think you're doing pretty well. Good job!

Tone and Balance

Tone and balance evaluation

Your tone is definitely neutral and all your information seems unbiased when you present it. There also does not seem to be any sort of over or underrepresentation, or persuasion. I don't know how you could have managed that, though.

Sources and References

Sources and references evaluation

I would go and make sure all the information you put in there is referenced properly. It looks like you've mostly got everything, but it seems like some of your facts haven't been hooked to a reference.

Organization

Organization evaluation

It is concise, clear, and easy to read,doesn't seem to have spelling errors, and seems well organized. This is just a suggestion, but perhaps you might want to put the stuff that talks about studying the ion transporters near the beginning of the article instead? I don't know if that'll make it flow better, honestly, but you could try it and see if you like it.

Images and Media

Images and media evaluation

You don't have any images, so I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Overall impressions

Overall evaluation

The article is defintely more complete, and makes more sense now, so you've done a good job! I guess the only thing you might need to work on is making sure everything is cited well, and maybe playing around with the organization a bit, but other than than I have nothing to suggest.