User:Interiorwater/Isopeptide bond/Acrchan Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Interiorwater


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Interiorwater/Isopeptide_bond&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Isopeptide bond

Lead
Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? : Interiorwater edited some parts of the introduction, which improved readability. However, a lot of detail was added to the introduction, which I found a bit overwhelming to read as a first-time reader. I also found that the last three paragraphs could have been shortened and combined to make the introduction more cohesive. The paragraph second to the last could be shortened to introduce the idea of how isopeptide bonds can be formed and then expanded more in the body.

Content
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? : As mentioned previously, there were a lot of details added to the article which gives a lot more useful information, though I think misplaced in the Lead section. The sources added are relatively recent.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? : Yes, the added content is reflective of new research and the sources are varied, which gives the article a neutral tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? : Yes, four of the new sources were journal articles published under reliable publishers. One source was from an online dictionary, which could be relatively unreliable, since there were no sources on the website.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? : Yes the information added to the article lines up with the sources that were found. Though it does reflect research in the sources, the information added could do with more sources to back it up. For example, the sentence "Isopeptide bond formation can be enzyme-catalyzed or occur spontaneously." cites two sources (one each for enzyme-catalysed and occur spontaneously). There could be more sources added that agree with the statement to increase the validity.

Are the sources current?: Yes, most of them were published in the 2000's.

Organization
Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? : Interiorwater edited some parts of the Lead section that made the article more readable! The writing is clear, but sometimes overly detailed, particularly towards the end of the section. Here are some minor edits I would make:


 * As there are the E3 ligases containing HECT domains, in which they continue this ‘transfer chain’ by accepting once again the ubiquitin via another conserved cysteine and then targeting it and transferring it to the desired target. – This was a whole sentence, but I had trouble understanding it.
 * “Then, the ” — 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, "Biosignaling Bond Chemistry"
 * italicise “V. cholerae" in the first paragraph of "Biosignaling and biostructural roles"

Additionally, I noticed that the article lacked a lot of cross-referencing to existing Wikipedia articles. If added (if possible), this could greatly improve readers' understanding since they would be redirected immediately to another article they could reference. For example, ubiquitin is cited in the first paragraph of the "Biosignaling and biostructural roles" section, but not in any of the following paragraphs.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? : Overall yes! However, I believe the last three paragraphs at the end of the Lead section could be combined to be more concise and cohesive.

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 so! The edits made were substantial and added some context to an article that people may be reading for the first time.

What are the strengths of the content added?: Content was well-researched and I appreciated that the information came from different sources. This showed me that a lot of research went into adding new information.

How can the content added be improved?: Try to make the Lead section more concise and shorter, remove some excess details in the introduction to improve readability, add citations to existing Wikipedia articles, make some small edits in format in the article body.