User:Dudleydoodog/Trp operon/Lakemicriver Peer Review

General info
Dudleydoodog
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dudleydoodog/Trp operon
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Trp operon:

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, my peer has updated the page with additional information on the regulation of the trp operon. This can be found in the current version.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introduction of the topic distinguishes the the operon systems in different types of cells.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Although the information is detailed, it provides relevant information needed for the article in a concise manner.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content describes the structural gene of the trp operon in E. coli and then distinguishes it from Bacillus subtilis. Additionally, the peer included information about the translation of genes that play a role in synthesis, inhibition, or activation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date. The peer added 3 sources, all of which were published within the last few years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content added is appropriate and helps with understanding the scientific terminology.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral. There is no bias in tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Overrepresented, or underrepresented viewpoints? Does it attempt to persuade the reader in favor of or away from a position?
 * No, there are no claims with intention of persuasion. The sources are reliable and provides insights through the use of facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the references are books from prominent publishing organization.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content is accurate and the user tries to avoid plagiarism.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are comprehensive in their explanation and reflect the available literature, somewhat. Although the sources are fairly recent, some of them were published over 10 years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, most of the authors are either white, asian, and men. I also notice that Charles Yanofsky's work is cited 3 times.
 * 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.)
 * The sources added by my peer exhibit extensive knowledge on the topic. Also, the trp operon has been studied for a long time so there probably isn't new information regarding this mechanism.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is easy to read and follows clear and accurate language.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is added to a section already found within the article. Separating this section into paragraphs may help in organization.

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Yes, the article is supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Yes, it follows the organization of similar articles and has links to other topics, where it is needed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, the peer does this many times within the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The additional information adds to the completeness of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is detailed and explains the mechanism of the topic well, but in a concise manner.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * With better organization.