User:AnonymousIpad/Biophysical chemistry/Ymukohya Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AnonymousIpad


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnonymousIpad/Biophysical_chemistry?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Biophysical chemistry

Evaluate the drafted changes
First of al, the author did not paste the original article to the sandbox, which made it hard to see what the author has added and edited. But overall, the author did a good job adding relevant informations and keep the article concise. I loved the history section!

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? / Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The Lead section has not been updated to reflect the new content added. Although the Lead already concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, it may be beneficial to include medical application in addition to biological applications (IF medical application is as impotant and well researched as biological application).


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, it overall includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It doesn't mention about history, but I believe it is unnecessary to include in the Lead.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, it does not include information that is not present in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all content added is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, all the content added is up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is no content that is missing or content that does not belong.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The topic seems to be irreverent with historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content added is neutral and does not contain any bias.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, every viewpoints are not over nor under represented


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, all new content is backed up with a reliable secondary source of information.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes, the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sauces through and reflect the available literature on the topic.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, the sources are current


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Some of the sources especially from a website could be replaced by peer-reviewed articles. e.g., 4 "Karl Friedrich Bonhoeffer". www.mpinat.mpg.de. Retrieved 2023-04-02.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, they work perfectly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, the content added is well written and concise. I loved how the author explained what enzymes are first in the enzyme improvement section under applications. This shows that the article is written for general public.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I didn't find any grammatical or spelling errors.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Overall the content added is well organized. However, Groningen (1964-1974) in history section could come before Göttingen - Modern Era (1971-Current)? It seems that Groningen (1964-1974) is between the early era and modern era.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The content added definitely improved the overall quality of the article. The author could edit/add techniques section, add more section such as disciplines, or expand more on modern principles.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The strength of the content added is how the author added information while keeping the article clear and concise. it does not contain any unnecessary informations, which makes it easy to read. The use of subheadings also helped the article well organized and clear.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I do not think there needs to be much things to improve in terms of the content added.

Letter of Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear Ymukohya,

Thank you for providing me with supportive feedback. In this letter, I revise and respond to each point of your comments carefully and state them below.

''The Lead section has not been updated to reflect the new content added. Although the Lead already concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, it may be beneficial to include medical application in addition to biological applications (IF medical application is as impotant and well researched as biological application).''

I accept the suggestion and have edited the lead section.

''Some of the sources especially from a website could be replaced by peer-reviewed articles. e.g., 4 "Karl Friedrich Bonhoeffer". www.mpinat.mpg.de. Retrieved 2023-04-02.''

Regarding this comment, the source is the biography of Karl Friedrich Bonhoeffer during his contribution to MPI. Therefore, it is hard to find a biography article to support the writing.

''Overall the content added is well organized. However, Groningen (1964-1974) in history section could come before Göttingen - Modern Era (1971-Current)? It seems that Groningen (1964-1974) is between the early era and modern era.''

I understand your point here. However, I decided to write them separately since the supporting sources refer to different countries, so the story may be different. To clarify them, I put the country as a sub-heading to differentiate them as two different stories.

The author could edit/add techniques section, add more section such as disciplines, or expand more on modern principles.

I have acknowledged this comment and will look in it further.

I am truly thankful that you gave comments that could improve my manuscript further. I hope that this letter successfully addresses my careful revision of the comment.

Yours sincerely,

AnonymousIpad