User:Simarv/FtsK/Matthewmendoza 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? Simarv,
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Simarv/FtsK

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? This is a new article so all updated content has been created this month.
 * 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? The lead does contain some information that was not discussed later in the article. This includes their sentence " FtsK belongs to the AAA superfamily and is present in most bacteria". They did not talk about the relation between the AAA superfamily and FtsK.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content pertains directly to the outline they wrote in the lead and is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is fairly up-to-date, but some sources could be updated to show more recent articles.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, they're missing information on temperature ranges of FtsK and which range of temperatures affect cell division.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content as a whole is very non-biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The sections labeled 'Binding site' and 'dif site' could have more information added to them.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Their sources are somewhat current, but several could be seen as outdated (2002-2007) and should be modified to reflect more current information on the topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is easy to read. However, some acronyms could be written out to aid the reader in understanding the topic (e.g. "These sites are referred to as KOPS motifs").
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors were found, however, some minor grammatical sentence issues were seen.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Some subsections should be made into their own separate sections, since they don't fit in well (e.g. Role in cell division within structure)

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? They had six sources, which all accurately represent the topic.
 * 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? Yes, it contains headings and infoboxes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does not.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the topic had not been written on Wikipedia before, and enough information has been given so far.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The 'Mechanism of Action' section was very well written and had in-depth subsections which made it clear to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some grammatical errors can be fixed in order to make it more reader-friendly. Some information can be added to subsections (e.g. Dif site and Binding site) to make the article more complete.