User:Simarv/FtsK/Graemebeatie 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) Simarv
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Simarv/FtsK

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
This is a great lead. There is a good summary/definition of the protein and an outline for the rest of the topics in the article. It is concise and clear with formatting that increases understanding.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, sources within the last 5 years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Content evaluation
The content is all related to the content and is referenced by sources that are published as recently as five years ago. There is not that much content missing and all content is appropriate for the article.

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
Tone is neutral and professional. There are not biased claims or biased writing. Overall balanced writing and appropriate tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are reliable and the links to sources are working. All of the content is attributed to a source. There may be a few more recent articles, but overall the sources are current.

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 content is well written with few grammatical mistakes. Sections are in an order that makes sense as described in the lead. Information is presented in a way that is concise and easy to follow.

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
There are no images or media

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
The article has more than three sources and so fulfills the Notability requirement. The sources are current according to the guidelines, although there may be some published more recently that five years ago. The information follows general format of other articles. There is one link to another article.

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 is a new article so all content contributes to the overall completeness of the article. The information is well sourced and well organized in a way that is easy to follow and makes sense. There could be more content added, and a few images of the protein would be interesting.