User:BrianRatnasinghe/Spore photoproduct lyase/Sbj2001 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? BrianRatnasinghe and AlexCorrigan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Spore photoproduct lyase

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but this is because the article is short and is not sectioned off.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation
This does not need additional work.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Based on a quick search it appears that more recent literature is available on this topic. I think it would be good to review this work as it may add to this page.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? To my knowledge of this enzyme, nothing is out of place, however, structural information is available and I think talking about this information would make this more complete.

Content evaluation
Maybe look into the newer papers on this as well as uniprot and pbd entries to provide more structural information on this enzyme.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
This is well handled because the tone remains neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Some of them are, but newer pieces are available.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
As I mentioned, some newer papers are available.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think adding some sections to separate the mechanistic information and structural information would be helpful.

Organization evaluation
Just include some subheadings. This will section off the article much better.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image is not captioned, this needs to be added.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Overall impressions/Evaluation
It appears the image was made by another Wikipedian? Maybe include more updated mechanistic info and consider adding to that image. I think the content/backbone is there but also structural info will help here too.

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds more mechanistic information.
 * How can the content added be improved? New image and structure work included.