User:Reas0ns11/Carboxypeptidase/KeyLowZip 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? (provide username)
 * Reviewing the sandbox of user Reas0ns11
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * carboxypeptidase sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has not been updated on the live wiki due to the sandbox only containing a rough but potential update to the live draft.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The new paragraph article does include a concise introductory sentence that ties well with the paragraph's content.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Due to the nature of the sandbox, there is only one major section provided.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The content in the sandbox does not contain a lead due to the sandbox only containing a segment of a wiki draft.
 * The content in the sandbox does not contain a lead due to the sandbox only containing a segment of a wiki draft.

Lead evaluation
3/5

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content provided in the sandbox is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It is unknown if the content is up-to-date due to the singular source used.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Due to the nature of the sandbox and assignment, the sandbox only contains content that may potentially be added to the live draft. This content would be beneficial to the live draft if more sources can be added to support the content.

Content evaluation
4/5

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Content added to the sandbox is given in a neutral manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There seems to be no claim to a biased stance on the topic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The content viewpoints do not seem either over-represented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Due to the nature of the content, there is very little persuasion to a biased stance.

Tone and balance evaluation
4.5/5

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Only two sources are given. Majority of the content is taken from the first reference given without a provided link to the source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * More sources should be sited to form a reliable wiki page. The sources are relevant to the topic, however, the sited source is old and may be out of date with current literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * One of the sources provided is from 1989 which most of the statements are based around.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The few links provided do work and link to a relevant site corresponding to the given phrase.

Sources and references evaluation
2/5

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Content is easy to follow hitting key points in a clear manner.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Very few grammatical errors found through the draft.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The topic flows well and is relevant to the main bulk of the content.

Organization evaluation
4/5

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The sandbox content would help fill in the live Wiki article providing more content.




 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content provided is well written and concise. It provides new information not on the live Wiki article although it is undetermined if the source provided is up to date.


 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More sources should be sited to aid in supporting the added content.
 * Extra Notes
 * No added images/media to the sandbox

Overall evaluation
3.5/5