User:Srudinru/Pseudouridine/Sawagsta 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? Srudinru
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Srudinru/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, I think they did a good job of updating the lead to talk about what is included in the rest of the article.
 * 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?
 * Most of the sections are included but I do wish it was slightly shorter or broken into smaller paragraphs. I mention more about it in the next two questions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, I feel that you just need to move some of your details into a new section of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead is a little long and goes into too much depth in certain aspects. I think the section about the C-C bonds and the linking of the molecule could be added to a subsection below called structure.

Lead evaluation
I think your lead does a very good job of starting the article right. It briefly talks about many of the subjects which are focused on in the article. I do think you touch on a few things which aren't discusses in your article such as structure. I think your lead also might be slightly long. It is a very long paragraph. I also think is goes too much in depth for the lead of a wikipedia article. You could maybe divide it into two paragraphs or take some out of it and add it to the rest of your article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, you did a very good job of finding new information and starting this article from basically nothing.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, I really like the medical category you had
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do wish there was a section on current research that is being done. You mention it briefly in the introduction but I think it would be interesting to see the various fields this applies to other than the medical field.

Content evaluation
Overall, I think you did a good job with this article. There are a few areas that I think could be elaborated on such as a structure section or a research section. The sections that you do have are well done and they make a lot of sense. One thing I think would be good if the first time you mention Pseudouridine in each section you use the name not the abbreviation of Psi. I have not read other articles on this so that might be a common thing which researchers do. I also think your article could benefit from a brief topic sentence or paragraph in the section "The effects and modification on different RNA". I think it would help the article flow. I do like that your articles seems up to date. One section which I do wish was added was additional research other then the medical field.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
Good Article, I didn't notice any tone or balance issues!

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?
 * I think you could find more sources, for a majority of the article you do primarily use only two sources. I think it allows more places or error and the article would be better if you found other sources to also back up your information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
You have a lot of good sources and all of the links I checked worked. My one comment is maybe to find a few more articles which you can base more of your article off of. I know this is difficult since this topic is probably fairly new to you. If you could find additional sources with the same information as article 6 and article 9. Good job finding all the sources and using them well!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the lead had a lot of information but other than that I learned a lot.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't notice any, but I am not the best proof-reader
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, your organization was really really good!

Organization evaluation
You wrote a really nice article that was very clear. I didn't have too many questions after reading it. The only comment I could think of was making the lead a little bit more easier to follow. I didn't find any really noticeable grammatical errors. I liked the way you organized the article. If I was searching for something about Pseudouridine I think it would be easy to find what I was looking for.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * I wish that you labelled them with a figure number so then they can be easily referenced throughout the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think so!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
Good job using images in the article. I do wish the pictures were referenced more in the article so I knew why the pictures were important. When I read wikipedia I use the pictures to avoid reading the entire article. Your pictures were very informative but I wasn't exactly sure what they were trying to tell me. Your article would also benefit if the images were labelled with figure #: so they can be easily referenced.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You added a lot of information on Pseudouridine.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Structure Section
 * Splitting the lead into multiple sections
 * Figure captions
 * Adding a few more references

Overall evaluation
You wrote a really nice article. It was very informative and you did a good job of improving the article from the original form. I thought the organization was really good and helped the flow of the wikipedia article. You had a few good figures and the tone of the article was perfect. I have a few recommendations which are provided through out my peer review or in the bulleted list above.