User:Caroline.Alexandre59/Guanosine diphosphate/Mariamismail34 Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing Caroline Alexandre 59.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Caroline.Alexandre59/Guanosine diphosphate
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Guanosine diphosphate

Evaluate the drafted changes
Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer, and there seems to be a concise and flow in the article about the subtitle my peer has written. The subtitle she added under to the wikipedia stub is about intracellular signaling which is seen in the short writing they have provided. The lead does provide an introductory sentences that concisely and clearly describe the article topic, in such it seems they are adding to existing paragraph about intracellular function, but their addition of information seem to flow with the existing paragraph about intracellular signaling. The leads provide new information that is not present in the article, specifically they go in depth about the mechanism of intracellular signaling while the existing paragraph specifies the regulation pathway. Based on readability, the lead does a good job as attributing her meaning without being to detailed or straying away from the topic.

I believe the content that is added is relevant to the topic, it speaks to the biochemical mechanism that occurs of the interconversion of GDP to GTP, in order to facilitate the importation, which relates the topic of Guanosine Diphosphate. If to speak towards the content in terms of accuracy in today's time, then yes, the content is accurate, if to speak of reference and their citation, the content is ranges from out of the five year range, but their citation convey both information published in 2006 and 2018 which shows that information is multi sourced and openminded to conveying the idea of all time range. I don't believe their is any content missing, based on reading the portion of the stub, their information is concise and understandable to reference. No, I don't believe the content meets the equity gap, it specific to a biochemical mechanism, thus irrelevant towards underrepresent population.

The content reads off as neutral, it conveys the mechanistic approach for importation, it conveys the information in sequence order, making it neutral to the reader. No, I don't see any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoint that are overrepresented or underrepresented, seems to maintain neutrality, and convey the information that is academically updated through the literature. No the content does not attempt to persuade me, it seems to convey the author attempting to portray information that was found.

The content is backed up by reliable sources of information, the information comes from academic journals, and information found in the academic journal is worded in their own words based on the content they found. Yes the content is thorough, they do reflect available literature, although I can't for say for sure because two citation are only provided. The source is somewhat current it within the five year ranged but it also takes sources that are out of the five year range. The sources are peer-reviewed, as well as reviewed article, conveying both secondary and primary sources were used.

Yes, the content meets the notability requirement has two sources that seem to be exhaustive in terms of search of the content. No article doesn't follow a pattern it seems to be written in their own words. Yes, article in general has other links to be more accessible to other related topics.

I think the addition to the stub is valuable considering it speak to the mechanism quality, in biochemical terms it would be helpful to any student looking to gain light on mechanism of nuclear importation. I think the content can add more citation, but overall the information comes across well and informative.