User:Sieradzkig/SymE-SymR toxin-antitoxin system/Sabrina Mierswa 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 does a good job of introducing the topic, along with telling what it is. The lead provides a general description of the major sections as it includes info about the mechanisms and the role. All important topics and things mentioned within the article are present within the lead. One thing I would do is remove the words named and just put a comma as this makes the first sentence a little bit clumsy in its presentation.

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
The content is up to date with many sources, including one from 2020. Additionally the content includes good background information along with scientific information. The content presented is all relevant to the topic. If possible, I would add one or two sentences more under SymR for structure to provide more information on how it is related to the SymE structure. Overall the content is very good and contains a lot of detailed information.

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
The article is neutral as it presents neutral sources and claims. The article is balanced on viewpoints and includes information on both SymE and SymR respectively. Once again, I would just add more if possible on the structure of SymR to round out the article.

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 content is very thorough and includes a variety of sources from both recent and from arond a decade ago. This means that article has kept abreast of new developments, while presenting what is already known. Additionally, the links do work for the sources. The number of sources is also complete. One thing I would consider doing is adding more double citations. This means adding more sources to claims to back them up from the sources listed. This will help to make some of the content presented more reliable.

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
The organization of the article is very good. I do not see any spelling mistakes or grammatrical. The content is also well organized as it is broken down into sections. The only thing may be to make the image slightly smaller as it appears to overpower the paragraph next to it if possible. The graphic serves to highlight the topic, but my eye is drawn to it first over the text.

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
I like the image included in the article. It helps to show the structure of the SymE toxin. Another image to include may be how SymE and SymR fit together if it is available. The image is well-captioned and adhere to all copyright regulations as it was made by a user. It is also visually appealing.

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
Overall the article is written very well and is very informative. The two things I would do would be to add more on the SymR structure if it is available and possibly resize the image as to not overpower the text next to it. All parts of the article are super organized and are coherent. Additionally the image serves to highlight the important parts of the article. Overall great job and very good article!