User:Ahiggs1013/Lactic Acid Cycle/Simarv Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? ahiggs1013
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ahiggs1013/sandbox

Lead
There is no separate Lead section, although a main concept is expressed in the first sentence. However, the article never elaborates on the claim made in the first sentence.

Content
The lead content is relevant to the topic, although the main fermentation pathway description is missing. Information should be separated into a lead section and other sections that include information about the lactic acid cycle itself.

Tone and Balance
The content is neutral, although unbalanced as it is missing main points such as specifics of the Lactic Acid Cycle and chemical characteristics.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by proper sources. The source "Alm, Livia (1982-03-01). "Effect of Fermentation on Lactose, Glucose, and Galactose Content in Milk and Suitability of Fermented Milk Products for Lactose Intolerant Individuals". Journal of Dairy Science. 65 (3): 346–352. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(82)82198-X. ISSN 0022-0302." appears to be a bit dated. The most recent article was published nine years ago, while the other two are over thirty-years-old.

The links work properly and display appropriate articles.

Organization
It is apparent that the content is not finalized, but what is written is pertinent to the topic. There are some grammatical errors. For example, the article reads "Further studies can be conducted on other milk produces like acidophilus milk." It seems like the word "produces" is not what they meant to write.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

It appears the article is meant to be a new article and not an addition since I was not able to find a wikipedia article titled "Lactic Acid Cycle" although, upon reading it seems to be more consistent with an addition than a comprehensive new topic.

The article is supported by three reliable sources so it should meet the Notability requirements. This article does not follow the pattern of similar articles and it doesn't appear to be linked to further articles.

Overall impressions
The overall impression is that the reviewed article was meant to be an addition to a pre-existing one and as such it seems adequate. If it was intended as new stand-alone article it is missing some points such as chemical pathways.

The sources are proper but might need more sources to develop more content.