User:Nstynka/Lineweaver–Burk plot/Cebeck Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

nstynka


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nstynka/Lineweaver–Burk plot


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lineweaver–Burk plot

Lead
You've definitely added a more thorough lead than was in the original article. The introductory sentence is a good summary of what you talk about in the rest of the article. You have a place holder for where you'll insert an image of the plot and that's definitely a good idea.

My suggestion for this section would be to redo the formatting. For instance, get rid of the title "Introduction," so it shows up at the very top of the article with the table of contents right below it. I would make "Definitions for Interpreting Plot" and "Derivation" their own sections within the body of the article.

Content
I like how you've included definitions of all the terms since there's so many of them. It's good that you've included what the intercepts mean in all of the forms of inhibition. I feel like you've covered all pertinent information.

"Problems with Lineweaver-Burk" is a useful section to talk about its statistical errors but perhaps reword it a little because even though it's good information it's a little hard to follow.

Tone and Balance
You don't show any bias and you've written in a neutral tone. You talk about how this isn't the best regression due to its associated errors, but this is necessary.

Organization
Your article is mostly well-organized. As I've said early, I would consider reformatting the introduction so it's a true "Lead" section. I found a single sentence with a capitalization error in the "Problems with Lineweaver-Burk" section, beginning with "most points on the plot are found ...", but other than that I found no grammatical errors.

The primary thing I would change is how you format your in-text citations because they're a little inconsistent. For instance you've used it as

" ... back to obtain x- and y- intercepts.[8]"

" The KM inhibited is α KM [1]."

They should all be formatted with the citations immediately after the period of a sentence, as I've noted in the first example.

Images and Media
As I've said, including that one image would be useful. Additionally, I'd consider adding more equations, formatted as equations from the "Insert" option from the toolbar at the top. You've said you're going to include equations from the derivation, which is good. However, it would be easier to follow if you used this formatting option.

Overall Impressions
Overall, you've done a great job at including good information necessary for this article. Your formatting is better than the original article, but could be reorganized to make the information flow better. Content wise, I feel like you've covered all of the bases.

Good job :)