User:167B/Lipopeptide/BunBun007 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) 167B is the work I am peer reviewing on.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Lipopeptide
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Lipopeptide

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.

Yes, the lead included clearly describes the article's topic.

Yes, the lead included a brief description of the article's major section. It provided information and was a continuation of the previous person's work. It made sense with the continuation.

Yes, the lead included information that was not presented. More new information was provided.

The lead was concise. It made sense. It was not overly detailed. It to the main point.

Content:

Yes, the content added was relevant to the topic.

Yes, the content added was up-to date.

No, there was no content that was missing and did not belong. The content added were placed at the place it was supposed to be. The content added followed the previous editor's flow.

The topic was not related to historically populated topic. It did not have that much information in the page. The article was not a common topic that people would talk in every day life.

Tone and Balance:

Yes, the content added was neutral.

There were no placed that appeared heavily biased toward a particular position.

There was viewpoints that are over represented or underrepresented. Everything looked fine.

Yes, the content added persuade the reader. The facts were interesting.

Sources and References

Yes, all of the new content backed up the content.

The content was accurately cited.

Yes, the sources reflect on the topic.

Yes, the sources are current.

The sources were written by professional people. The source does include historically information.

There could be better sources. There are many sources that are available but the sources used are still good.

Yes, all of the link work fine.

Organization

Yes, the content added was well written and clear and easy to understand.

No, there was no spelling errors in grammar.

The content was well organized into separated sentences and other editor's work. The flow was good.

Images and Media: There was no images or media added

Overall impressions:

Yes, the content improved the article.

The content added strengthen the article in which it made it more clearer and detailed.

The content is well added and nothing needs to be improved.