User:Mkcm131/Rubredoxin/Banadoodles Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Mkcm131
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mkcm131/newsandbox

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.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise. It contains just enough detail for readers to comprehend.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic and adds more information to the original article.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

The latest reference used is from 2000. If there are any other articles that can be used which is dated in the recent years, it should be considered. Otherwise, the content added is alright.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is no missing content, but I would suggest editing the information of structural properties since some details are already included in the original wiki article like how the redox-active iron is coordinated by four cysteines. Additionally, I would suggest changing the sub-heading clostridium pasteurianum because the paragraph below it talks about electron transfer mechanism. If the paragraph explains the electron transfer of rubredoxin obtained from clostridium pasteurianum, then, it should be changed to Electron Transfer Mechanism or put under the electron transfer sub-heading. Moreover, in the paragraph, that is where it should be stated that it is as observed from clostridium pasteurianum.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content added is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, there are not.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it does not. It only presents the available information to the readers.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

The sources used are from 1997 to 2000. There could have been more recent articles that could have been used.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The references cannot be clicked on, but can be searched on the internet.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The content is well-written. It is easy for any reader to comprehend.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

It does not contain 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?

Yes, the content is nicely broken down into sections.

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 article included images that enhance the understanding of the topic; however, these images are already included in the original wiki article so I do not think it is necessary to add it again.


 * Are images well-captioned?

The second image uploaded is not captioned well. It would be better if the caption was expanded. Looking at the structure it only says "the detailed structure". The phrase could be interpreted as anything. It is a bit vague as to what structure it is. As I mentioned above, the images are already included in the original wiki article and in addition, are captioned well so the images and captions in this wiki contribution is not necessary.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

The images uploaded are not of the student's work, but are of free license.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the content added improved the overall quality of the article.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

I like the simplicity of the content added which makes it easy for readers to comprehend.