User:Eal13lanc/Urea cycle/Ztwitchell76 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) Eal13lanc
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Eal13lanc/Urea cycle

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead does not appear to have been changed. It is a good intro though.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead is not a smooth introduction (it says cycle 10 times making it feel wordy but that's a personal opinion not a professional analysis), but does concisely describe the topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead has a table of contents but not a description of each of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead mentions ureotelic organisms in the lead and links to another article about waste metabolism that does explain what that means but does not itself eleaborate on ureotelic organisms. Other than this and the history of its discovery the rest of the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise as it is less than 3 lines long.

Lead evaluation
The lead does a good job of establishing quickly what occurs in the urea cycle and why it is important. There are a few details like the history of its discovery that could be removed and given a whole section of their own, but overall it is a concise lead that accomplishes its purpose.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Each of the sections in the article is pertinent and does not distract from the purpose of the article. It has sufficient detail to instruct on the subject with out being a scientific article from a journal.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources are from with in the last decade with only one exception. There is an article from 1977 that still appears to be a good source, just not recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? With out researching further the only content missing is a section detailing the methods used to discover the urea cycle and an explanation of ureotelic organisms.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is well written and well detailed. It can be used to gain a pretty good understanding of the urea cycle from both the text and added images.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The article does not take a side in regards to this article leaving it as factual and neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
When it comes to the tone of the article it avoids any language that could be biased. It focuses on facts and references and keeps the material neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources in this article all work. They come from reliable scientific journals and seem to cover a good portion of what is relevant to this topic. Information regarding its discovery may be missing, but it may also not be readily available or well sourced due to when it was discovered.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article was easy to read and would require only a little background knowledge to understand some of the chemistry discussed here. This is fair as anyone attempting to understand a biochemical cycle such as this should have this level of understanding concerning the chemistry already. As far as what was added there was not much but it was well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
This article has divided the sections up and organized them in a way in which information is easy to find and it flows. As you read it one leads into another. This makes it easier to understand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are a few images of the urea cycle. The fit well into the article and clearly show what is trying to be taught.

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? Much of the content added pertains to disease in children as a result of this. It improves the section concerning disorders but the additions do little to improve other areas of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Newborn urea cycle disorder.
 * How can the content added be improved? More content should be added as there is not very much.

Overall evaluation
The article has been very well written. Some more elaboration of points in the lead could be beneficial. The content added was very cleat but was not very extensive.