Talk:Methylthiotransferase

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? (provide username)
 * Jcm98, Hgarby
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jcm98/sandbox?action=edit

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes. It appears that the article is new, I cannot find old versions of it prior to what the writers have put together.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the lead includes a few introductory sentences which outline major details about Methylthiotransferases.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not appear to briefly describe the major sections. It appears that those topics are not mentioned until they are covered in their specific sections. The Lead provides a general overview and mentions known classes of methylthiotransferases, but it does not briefly describe each.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Well, the Lead is more of an overview paragraph included in the main body of the article. It appears that a specific short lead-in paragraph may be needed before that. The overview provides an excellent overview on Methylthiotransferases. I think that the current structure of the article is acceptable, with the overview and detailed descriptions of known methylthiotransferases. However, with additional information I think that re-structuring could be helpful.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The overview is detailed. It seems like it could be divided into a short overview and then a more in-depth overview.
 * The overview is detailed. It seems like it could be divided into a short overview and then a more in-depth overview.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the overview section has good content, it is well written, and it appears to be cited correctly. It could be divided into a very concise Lead that mentions the topics covered in the overview as well as the specific methylthiotransferases that are discussed, followed by the overview paragraph and remaining content, though the current structure is also acceptable.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all of the content added is from within the past 15 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, it appears that all of the content is relevant.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content represents a good view of methyltransferases. The flow of information through the article is good, and it seems to provide a good picture of our current understanding of methyltransferases.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral, and seems balanced.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No it does not seem biased.
 * 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, it is not attempting to persuade the reader into any particular viewpoint.

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone is neutral and there is a balance of information presented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all content is backed by articles and reviews from reliable journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are from reputable journals and represent the current literature on methylthiotransferases.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written, and fairly concise. It is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No there are not any mechanical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the content is well organized, with an overview and descriptions of the known methylthiotransferases.

Organization evaluation
The material is well organized, grammatically correct, and broken down into appropriate sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images currently, but they plan to include images of the chemical reactions facilitated by methylthiotransferases which will be a beneficial addition. I think that a Pymol rendering of a methylthiotransferase could also be a beneficial addition.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
The article could benefit from the addition of images of the chemical reactions facilitated by the methylthiotransferases as well as a Pymol rendering showing the structure of a methylthiotransferase.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * Yes the secondary sources come from well reputed journals, and there are 4 sources currently.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources seems limited in that it could stand to include more review articles rather than regular research articles.
 * 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?
 * The article contains an overview and subcategories of the main topic, as well as an infobox at the very top outlining everything that is covered in the article. I think it is very well laid out, though perhaps the infobox with all of the links should go under the overview? That is more the pattern observed in other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Currently no, but once it is published it should definitely be linked to the Radical SAM article.

New Article Evaluation
This is a great starting article. The sources are good, the content seems representative of recent literature, and the structure of the article mostly follows the pattern in other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Given that there didn't appear to be an article before, the current work is significantly improved compared to the nothing that was there before.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is detailed yet fairly concise. This is much improved as its own article rather than simply being a small subsection of the much larger Radical SAM article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that chemical reaction images and images of the proteins would be beneficial additions.

Overall evaluation
Overall, it seems that the article draft is well put together and presents a good overview of methylthiotransferases, as well as presenting a reasonable level of deeper insight to the specific known methylthiotransferases. I think that adding images would be helpful, and potential restructuring to more closely match the structure of other articles would be helpful. The current structure of the article is fine, though most articles seem to dive straight into the content without labeling it as a specific overview. Overall a good start on this topic.

AlexCorrigan (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)AlexCorrigan