User:Juliamontgomery/Glutamate 2,3-aminomutase/Tylernovsak 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)
 * Juliamontgomery and sbj2001
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Juliamontgomery/Glutamate 2,3-aminomutase

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?
 * No, but I think it is unnecessary due to the scarcity of information on this enzyme.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise
 * The lead is concise

Lead evaluation
Overall, I believe the lead has done well. From my understanding, not much is know from this enzyme, so what they have provided is an upgrade from the previous article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Content evaluation
Content is good, I would suggest hyperlinking some terms such as s-adenosyl methionine (SAM), or a quick sentence explaining what a SAM is.

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?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is only one proposed mechanism for the enzyme, so maybe present another possible mechanism? I gonna guess and say there is not another mechanism.

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance is neutral and the only suggestion I can think of is add other possible mechanisms.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes and no, source from 2007, might be more current info?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
I would try to add a few more sources that agree with the proposed mechanism to strengthen this article. Maybe a more current one since the one reference is from 2007.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the mechanism being illustrated is very helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Authors own work, so yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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?
 * No, only one source.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I believe more sources could be added.
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * I would suggest adding more links to become more discoverable.

New Article Evaluation
I would just add more sources to make it stronger and to meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes it has improved the quality of the article and is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Visually helpful, and more details on the enzyme.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add more current info and sources.

Overall evaluation
I think this article has been improved a lot compared to what was provided before the edits. I do believe there is still some info that could be added, but overall its a good article, good job.