User:KeyLowZip/Transferrin/SushiLover135 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? KeyLowZip
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:KeyLowZip/Transferrin/SushiLover135 Peer Review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the section about Transferrins and nanomedicine. However, should this have been added to the actual wiki article before revisions were provided by instructor?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Beginning is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, there are references added that were published in the 2000's
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There looks to be sufficient information from the draft that is not in the wiki article.

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? No

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
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read and is concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from what I can see, but there should be links to some of the words such as ovotransferrin, if there is a wiki article that exists about that specific compound.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The Second part is well organised with a heading, but the first part makes me unsure if this will go into multiples headings or only one heading.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (They did not add any 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?

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? I'm not sure if the "Tranferrin and Nanomedicine" was added by KeyLowZip because it is already in the wiki article word for word.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Add more linked to some of the words that have their own wiki articles like you did for 'gene'
 * How can the content added be improved? If possible, add a picture of the chemical structure of Transferrin?