User:Duke Chiu/Methyltransferase/Jcm98 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? Duke Chui
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sent via email

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but no new sections were added, just subsections.
 * 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? It somewhat does. The subsections regarding the different types of methyltransferases are listed, but the discussion of function is not prefaced.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There isn't a subsection that discusses the classes mentioned in the leading paragraph
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Could be more concise, but wasn't written by Duke

Lead evaluation
Could use some slight tweeking by Duke if he has the time

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Out of the content added by Duke, none of it seems unnecessary. He could add more detail about the specific enzymes he referenced and more general information regarding the impact of methyltransferases on cancer.

Content evaluation
Additions felt helpful but could use more detail

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? Not that I could tell
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is strictly based on previously completed research

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone of additions is great

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, it is
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe they do
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Since he hasn't posted these edits to the official article yet, I can't check them.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem to be relevant to the facts being presented, which is great.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The additions could use more clarity and detail.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are some grammatical errors that I mentioned in my comments on the word document.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I believe it is. A subsection may be helpful for the descriptions of each of the DNA/RNA methylation enzymes discussed.

Organization evaluation
There are some errors within the writing that need to be fixed, but once those are fixed then the article will definitely be more clear. The organization is good so far, but can be adjusted slightly to improve clarity.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? All images added by other authors seem helpful
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? As far as I can tell, yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Some integration into the sections themselves would be nice instead of just shoving them all to the right side of the page.

Images and media evaluation
Overall, the previously added images are good. Duke should consider adding a figure or two himself if he plans to discuss specific reactions for the enzymes he laid out in his edits.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I believe it has.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They add some specificity to the document and some relevance to well-known diseases.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some more detail in all sections added would be nice to improve the quality of the article even more.

Overall evaluation
I think the edits are good and useful, but more information would be nice to have.