User:Pacman118/Reverse Krebs cycle/Sparkly Amoeba Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Pacman118


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pacman118/Reverse Krebs cycle
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Reverse Krebs cycle

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Reverse Krebs Cycle

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

This group added 3 sections, including relevance to early life, medical relevance, and uses of the Krebs cycle.They stay relevant to the topic.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There does not appear to be any bias regarding any of the claims made though they are lacking sources particularly in regards to the relevance to early life.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The process itself is very underrepresented with no explanation on how it functions.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links work and take us to credible resources. The reference titled “Evidence for Autotrophic CO2 fixation…”, comes from a credible source but I’m not seeing how this source is relevant to the topic. They might add more explanation in general to how this source is applicable.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Yes. They come from books, research and journals. These are neutral sources. No bias is noted.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

Their sources are a little older but not too old. All references are there.​​ We think they could use some more references to back up their claims. Reverse the order of “use of reverse krebs cycle” and “medical relevance sections.” Additionally, they need to add dates to some of their references. Also, it would be helpful to explain what the rTCA stood for in the first paragraph.

Undecaprenyl Phosphate

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?