User:Ray1590/Flippase/NatMath13 Peer Review

= General info =

Whose work are you reviewing?
Ray1590

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Ray1590/Flippase

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Flippase

Lead
The lead was modified to transfer some of the information from it to dedicated sections. I think this is a good change since more information was also added in those sections. However, the lead should still briefly describe each section, in one or two sentence each. I think adding this would help make it more of an overview of the topic, directing which section to go to for more information. For example, adding a sentence about the three classes and the change of conformation. It would also be good to add references to it, even if they are the same as the rest of the article. There are also a few typos, ex "Flippases responses" -> "Flippases respond"

Content
I like the extra information and spreading it out into different sections, which helps with the organization of the article. I don't have the knowledge to judge the information, but I think from the article I managed to understand the basics, so most of the low-level information is present.

I like the section you added about structure, this seems to be completely new. However, I would have kept the details in the caption of the first figure, even if it is quite detailed. Otherwise the text would need to explain the removed information.

Some of the information at the beginning of the "Lateral and Transverse Movements" section seems very low-level, and almost textbook-like. For me, this was useful since I don't have background, however I think that it would probably be better to link other articles, or present it more as stating than explaining. I couldn't find articles about these movements elsewhere, so this might be the best page for them, but I would just reword a little bit.

There is no equity gap in either version of the article.

Tone and Balance
The tone is overall good, altough as said there are parts that are a bit too explain-y for wikipedia. From what I can tell the article seems to cover all the major points without mis-representation or bias.

Sources and References
I would add references to the lead as said, these can be the same as the body of the article. Just avoids having to go to the body to find references to lead info. The added citations, especially for classes, is good.

Reference 1 is used quite a bit and is a primary article, is it possible to use a secondary source for this info? Same for ref.2. In general, it'd be better to use reviews/textbooks for those. The references come from a variety of sources which is good. 1, 3, and 4 seem to be quite old (70s/80s), it might be better to use newer sources, but I don't know if that exists, depending on the age of the research field. For 3 and 4, it seems to be the original primary research, so citing the old article is probalby fine. If you can also find a newer source and use both, that'd be even beter though. All the sources are from research journals or books, which is good. All the links I tested seem to work.

Organization
Again, I like breaking up the article into three sections instead of one very long lead. It would be even better if these were quickly outlined in the lead. The structure of the article flows well, and I know where things are going and where to find information. In the "Classes" and "Structure/Domains" section, I would use more wikipedia hyperlinks to link to other pages. For example, there seems to be a good page on scramblase specifically, so you could link that when listing it first. I think the standard is to link the first time an important concept with a page is used in the article, not every time. I think the following could be linked: "ATP", "protein subunit", "dephosphorylation".

I might be inclined to merge the "Structure" and "mechanism" sections, but that depends on how well the content between them can be connected.

Grammar
There are some typos and gramatical errors here and there in the article. There are also a lot of random capital letters, avoid even if it is important words. This is especially in the "Classes", "Structure/Domains" and "Mechanism" sections, but the core structure of these sections is good.

Images and Media
The added images are useful to understand the article. In general, I would tend to add a bit more information to the captions to avoid having to refer to the text, instead being able to just read the caption to know what's going on in broad strokes. Also, the image on the classes of flippases is from that reference [8], just check that it is released under the CC license and don't label it as own work. Some of the images look a bit messy, but at least it's all computer-drawn, I've seen much worse on wikipedia.

Overall Impressions
The changes improve the quality of the article, especially in the organization of information, and helping the information be more approachable. The author added new information, as well as split what was a single lead into multiple sections, which helps to know which part of the article talks about what, and what is important. The added figures also give visual aid, which helped me understand the topic on a first read-through. The author added references and a few citations, but there could be a few more, especially in the lead section. I think the main point of improvement will be in the sentence structure and grammar, since there are a lot of sentence discontinuties or grammar errors. However, once this is done, I think the page will be improved well.