User:Bacteriaburst/Cytochrome P450/KemiahOwoh Peer Review

General info
Bacteriaburst
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bacteriaburst/Cytochrome P450
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cytochrome P450

Evaluate the drafted changes
Guiding questions:


 * Does it include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the information presented in the draft is new to the article.


 * Is the it concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The edit is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, content added is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Content sources are within the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * N/A
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * N/A
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * N/A
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, content adds context to P450 enzyme drug metabolism.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, published reviews were used to gather information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, I was able to find the information cited in the draft in the corresponding articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources are just over and slightly under the 10 year mark. An addition of an updated source could help address any scientific discoveries made over the last decade.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?
 * Authors were located in different regions. This adds diversity to the authorship.
 * 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.)
 * Zhao, M., Ma, J., Li, M., Zhang, Y., Jiang, B., Zhao, X., Huai, C., Shen, L., Zhang, N., He, L., & Qin, S. (2021). Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Drug Metabolism in Humans. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222312808
 * This source may provide updated information or reinforce information stated as a recent review.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links in the references work. However, the in-text citations are not in the correct format.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The conted flows nicely and does not have any errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content flows well with the previous information present on the page.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, now there is a concise but appropriately detailed addition regarding the enzymes. For continuity, the format the enzymes are addressed could be the same. For example continuing with P450s instead of CYP450 enzyme.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The addition was informational and easy to comprehend.