User:Sieradzkig/SymE-SymR toxin-antitoxin system/Imasciencer 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? (Sieradzkig)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: SymE-SymR toxin-antitoxin system

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is descriptive and gives a great overview of what to expect in the following article. If you are being linked from a different article this would give a great overview of the basics of this system. While not directly stating the articles major sections it does a fine job at describing them.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Content is very relevant to the topic and gives a clearer understanding of what the toxins do and why they are important to a prokaryotic process. This content also gives an insight as to how the structure of these molecules impact the function or operation of the cell.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
All content is neutral and has a great balance. The viewpoints are strictly scientific fact backed up by plentiful citations.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are abundant and current. Many of the sources are primary and are thorough in their description. These sources are also valid and function properly. Some of the sources are even from 2020!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
This article is very well organized and is extremely well written. From what I can tell there are no grammatical or spelling errors present in the material. While being concise it is also extremely descriptive and well thought out.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
The images in this article give a good representation of the structure that these 2 separate molecules have. The jMol image of SymE is easy to view and is definitely cited properly. The SymR is a little difficult to understand if you're just glancing at it, but once clicked on you can get a better understanding that it is showing conserved regions of the RNA, represented with colors.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This article is VERY well written and is very descriptive, gives a great overview of the topic presented. The organization is easy to follow; and the lead does a great job at introducing the topic at hand without delving too deep into how it works. My only suggestion is to add a jMol file of SymR if possible, I think that would really round out the structure section.