User:Mecailam/Formylglycine-generating enzyme/Biochemstudent96 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? Mecailam, Tdehart4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mecailam/Formylglycine-generating enzyme, link cannot be found ??

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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
New content could be added, for example I found another source including enzyme binding information which could make the article stronger. Information is true to the cited sources and updated portions show important information updates. The lead doesn't include a brief description of the articles main sections in the introduction. Basic binding information, aerobic and anerobic information should be reflected in the introductory paragraph.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Content is relevant, no unnecessary data is included, but some more relevant and up to date sources are out their and could expand on the wikipage.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is neutral and unbiased. There is no concern of persuasion of viewpoints which are biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are from reliable websites and all from the most recent decade of research on this topic. Links work.

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?

Organization evaluation
Content could be more concise and easier to read for a general audience, did not see any spelling errors. Sections reflect major points of research on the enzyme. Overall only criticism is making it more approachable.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added 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?

Images and media evaluation
No media provided, but media could be provided to increase approachability and include an image of the enzyme or binding.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new Article

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall I think you have a good first draft. I think it was great to separate the information for both the anaerobic and aerobic studies. Consider moving the information regarding the disease state earlier since I think that is what people traditionally use wikipedia for and also linking the related disease to the wikipedia page for that disease. The only major criticism I have is that I think you should include some more basic information in the first paragraph about why their are anaerobic and aerobic studies, as well as the disease implication so that all the following information is briefly introduced in the beginning in more approachable terms/wording. Final point, although I don’t know if there are any images or diagrams of this enzyme it may be beneficial to try to add an image !