User:MdMcAlister/Protein targeting/Remycrowley Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) MdMcAlister
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Protein targeting

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No additions.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, except for it does not mention the difference between bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes which are all discussed later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it is rather concise.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * If anything, the lead is too concise and needs additional detail about what is discussed in further sections (discussed below).

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * There is no addition to the article yet.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The last edit was in 2007, so it can definetely use some updating.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The Identifying protein targeting motifs in proteins section is rather empty. The rest of the the article appears to belong and is applicable to the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, this article deals with a scientific topic that has not been covered in depth. It does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * There is no new content added from the user.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article seems to have a neutral, informative viewpoint without any bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there are no real viewpoints presented in the article, only scientific facts.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is already rather neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are 5 sources, two of which are from the same author which could cause for a potential bias. They are all reliable, but more can always be added as it is a rather extensive article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While I believe the sources have great, reputable information, I believe there are updates that are needed since the last edit was in 2007.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A lot of the sources are from the early 2000s, and since science moves so fast, they definetely need to be reinforced with new sources or replaced.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are four authors and five sources. There is one woman included in this list. There can always be more ethnic perspectives and more marginalized individuals included, as well as more recent sources.
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/a

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?
 * Not a new article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/a
 * 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?
 * N/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * There has been no new content added, but there is definetely room for improvement moving forward!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * N/a
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Can add to limited sections, add images, improve introduction, renovate reference list with more recent sources or new information. ==

Overall evaluation
==   Although there are no new additions yet, I see the potential for this article to be improved in various ways. There are a lack of images, an introduction that may be too concise, and sections created that have little to no content underneath. The sources are also potentially outdated and can be updated to reflect new discoveries. ~Remycrowley ==