Wikipedia:Peer review/Mitochondrion/archive1

Mitochondrion

One of the basic topics in Biology, needs to be reviewed for comprehensiveness and prose. It is currently a Good Article, but needs some more work. pschemp | talk 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Here's a few nitpicks:

In the lead, "convert organic materials into energy in the form of ATP" may not be clear - people who have to look up mitochondria probably don't know what ATP is or that it stores energy.
The "25% of the cell's cytoplasm" statements needs a citation. Same with the later claim of 13 mitochondrially encoded proteins in humans.
Added reference for 13 peptides and some general mt genome info (Sedmic) 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph in the structure section needs a bit of reorganization, as it's currently not grammatically obvious whether "the two membranes" in the last sentence refers to the outer and inner membrane, or the mitochondrial versus the cell membrane.
In the structure section, the membrane potential is mentioned only as an afterthought, but such an important feature should get a better description (even though it's also covered later in the article, it sounds thrown into the structure section).
The two images aren't all that different. I personally like the first one better because the text is included in the image, so it can be understood independently of the text. (The text on the image could use some cleanup of the inconsistent capitalization, but that's a very minor issue.)
Images reduced to first one and cleaned up. pschemp | talk 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be more description of the variation in number of mitochondria by cell type (eg, the large number in muscle cells).
The "origin" section should definitely be before the population genetics discussion, and possibly before the reproduction section, because both make reference to the hypothesized origins. The origin section could also use some simplification, as it's currently a bit more technical than the rest of the article.
There's a few citation needed tags that need cleanup. The reference structure also seems messed up somehow, since the last section contains a note [1].
There is a [1] at the bottom, but only because its the same reference used at the top, but that's correct format. Refs are not given a new number when they are used again. pschemp | talk 04:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. I didn't see the first [1] and thought the order was mixed up. Opabinia regalis 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis 02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt the nominator is aware of the need for more references. You may find this can be more easily fixed by checking whether some of the child articles contain references for some of the statements in the summary sections in the umbrella article (i.e. mitochondrion). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to look at the hierarchy of headers when you get closer to completing the article, as the current structure of the TOC would no doubt be criticised at FAC. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]