User:03cpratasevich/Glutamate carboxypeptidase II/W1i2k3i4p5e6d Peer Review

General info
03cpratasevich (I am W1i2k3i4p5e6d)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:n/a (published)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Glutamate carboxypeptidase II

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead has not been updated to reflected the new content added by my peer, but it does have an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, but it also does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise.

The content added by 03cpratasevich is relevant to the topic and up-to-date, and it added necessary details that supplement the article and promote a complete understanding of its content. There is not content that does not belong, but there is likely content missing that should be added in the future (new data, etc.). This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

The content added is neutral, promoting Wikipedia's unbiased nature. There are no noticeable claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The viewpoints seem well-mixed, and there is no overrepresentation or underrepresentation. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

All new content is backed up by reliable sources of information. The content does, indeed, accurately reflect what the cited sources say. The sources are fairly thorough and current. I do not know if the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, including marginalized individuals where possible, since I only know the researchers' names. It seems that the sources for this article are largely good sources, and their links work.

The content added is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. Furthermore, the content added is well-organized, as it follows the pre-existing organization scheme of the article.

Overall, the added content improved the quality of the article by making it more complete. For example, mentioning PSMA's first detection in the LNCaP cell line was a crucial addition needed to understand the context of the discussed experiment/findings. The strengths of the content added are its accuracy, relevancy, concision, and flow. The content added could be improved by simply adding more content.