User:ScienceBubble/Copper protein/Bilal.bhatti96 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) $$\longrightarrow$$ ScienceBubble
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:$$\longrightarrow$$ User:ScienceBubble/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? $$\longrightarrow$$ No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? $$\longrightarrow$$ Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? $$\longrightarrow$$ No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? $$\longrightarrow$$ No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? $$\longrightarrow$$ No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? $$\longrightarrow$$ No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Are the sources current? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? $$\longrightarrow$$ No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? $$\longrightarrow$$ N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? $$\longrightarrow$$ Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? $$\longrightarrow$$ The strengths are that the content added is more condense, easier to read and understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? $$\longrightarrow$$ Some diagrams need to be added in so that the readers can visually see a blue copper protein. Some readers are visual learners so it helps for learning purposes.