User:SnowEm/Competence stimulating peptide/Brodietaytay Peer Review

General info
(SnowEm)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SnowEm/Competence_stimulating_peptide?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Good lead, with a good introductory sentence, but I would maybe reword the second sentence in your lead. It seems like you go in a circle, like CSP leads to quorum sensing and then in the next sentence it's like quorum sensing and csp work together for transformation. I think you can take the "quorum sensing systems" out of that sentence, or combine it into one sentence: Competence stimulating peptide (CSP) is a chemical messenger involved in quorum sensing in many Streptococcal species, CSP prepares bacterial cells for DNA transformation. or just something like that. Or even just changing the wording from "coupled to CSP" to "coupled with CSP."

I think you have great organization, the format could use some work but I think that all comes together once you're close to the final draft. With that being said I don't know how picky wiki is about format in the sense that you might want to add some page breaks, or take a way a few of the titles/bolded section. I think if you're writing well enough you don't need a title saying "how it works" a competent reader should be able to derive that. But I think that is fine to have in there while you're organizing and such.

It has great balance, no section feel too overrepresented/underrepresented.

I was curious about a few of your references being pretty old, that being said if there hasn't been much research done since then or it is still valid today then I think it's fine.