User:Christopher.Leichnam/Ovomucin/Shardonay3 Peer Review

The lead was not updated to reflect the content added by my peer, however I find this unnecessary as my peer’s addition is concise and continues seamlessly from the content already present before the addition. The lead did include a brief description of the article’s major section. My partner’s lead was concise and did not include information already found within the article. In terms of tone, the additions maintained the neutral nature of the article. It was not overly biased and no views were either under or over represented. There are no attempts at persuasive language within the addition.

My peer did not add an image to the article. Yes the content added has improved the overall quality of the article, the article now has statistics not previously present. The additional material provided examples of the biological activity that the glycoprotein possess. The content added can be improved by explaining why its biological activity implies that it has a major role in the immune system.

General info
Christopher.Leichnam
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Ovomucin
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Ovomucin

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)