User:KemiahOwoh/Trypsin/Bacteriaburst Peer Review

<User:KemiahOwoh/Trypsin/Bacteriaburst Peer Review

General info
KemiahOwoh
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KemiahOwoh/Trypsin?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Trypsin

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Kemiah! Here's my peer review for you,

Lead


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - Yes, you did complement the first initial section "Trypsin inhibitor" by explaining the important role it played in a human's metabolism.

Content


 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, you did use a source within the last five years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think your first sentence could do without "and being overweight" since you already stated obesity being a key component to chronic diseases. So it could read, "Metabolic disorders and obesity are known to increase non-communicable chronic disease prevalence." However, if being overweight, just not being obese is also a factor than perhaps this could sound more fluid, "Metabolic disorders, including obesity and overweight, are known to increase the prevalence of non-communicable chronic diseases."

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Regarding, "It is of public health policy interest to explore" could sound like a leading statement of where you stand on the subject but I could be wrong. I would double check this.

Sources and References


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) – Yes, I was able to find your cited information within the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? – Yes, the article referenced over 90 different articles.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? – Yes, the article was written by four international writers.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? – Yes, the link to your cited work worked.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? – Yes, I understood why you added what you added and what it all meant. It was clearly written.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? – Yes, the text flowed sentence to sentence and stayed on topic.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? – yes I think you added to the article. Before your draft, the trypsin inhibitor section discussed its interaction with the pancreas but lacked information in the over all health of a human.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? – You tied trypsin inhibitors to nutrition while adding to the current topic.

-Jasmin