User:ChemThings&Etc./Carbon monoxide dehydrogenase/Reas0ns11 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? (provide username)
 * ChemThings&Etc.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:ChemThings&Etc./sandbox

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 they described the role in reduction and oxidation.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes and noticeable additions that is not present in the original article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The oldest article referenced was only 1991 which is not an issue since that is relatively close to the 2000s. The other referenced articles are near present day, which is excellent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not missing but with this article it would seem to difficult to add significant amount of information for topics that were already mentioned in the original article (i.e. oxidation/reduction descriptions). However, adding more information into the smaller topics, like environmental and industrial use is good contribution.

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?
 * Comparing to the original article, the viewpoints were all presented fairly.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it presents the information that the reader seeks.

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?
 * All references used were relevant.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Only one article was from 1991, which is not bad since it's fairly "recent".
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

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?
 * Everything seems to be good, but maybe include the oxidation states of the metals mentioned? I'm not sure if that is necessary but the reader could use that information.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes each topic was broken down and separated with different sub-headings.

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

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The added content does provide more information to the less content heavy sub-headings from the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It provides more information about the applications of what the CODH is used for.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the main focus would have to be on the other sub-headings only because there seems to be sufficient information for the structures and oxidation/reduction sections. So focusing on the applications and providing more information there will improve the article.