User:Sunggyunglee/Metabolic flux analysis/Tnguyen01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sunggyunglee


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunggyunglee/Metabolic_flux_analysis?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Metabolic flux analysis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes, more applications have been added, and the use of 13C to determine pathway fluxes was further clarified.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes, Methods and Software sections were adde3d, with subheadings for the three different methodologies. All are relevant to how metabolic flux is analyzed, including technology and general mathematical equation. In addition, good notations were added in Sandbox history, so it's easy to keep track what was edited.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, many of the articles added are recent (2000s and higher)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content is highly related and essential.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, content was highly factual and analytical.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - There is an impressive amount of citations; every claim is backed up with a proper citation.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? - Sources are not from class textbooks, but citations reflect available literature. Most appear to be from journals; perhaps could include a textbook that mentions MFA?
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, most are from 2000s and higher.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, sources are written by authors across multiple disciplines.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - As mentioned before, one very stable secondary source like a textbook could enhance citations.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -The material is certainly dense, but that is to be expected. However, it is well-written, and understandable. There are parts that are a bit difficult to understand, but the author did a good job with small clarifications, like "By calculating Gibbs free energies of metabolic reactions and consequently their thermodynamic favorability," making it easier to follow along.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -Not that I could identify.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes it's broken down into the proper headings and subheadings. Isotopically stationary metabolic flux analysis, INST-MFA, and TMFA closely relate to each other and all correctly fall under the heading "Methods."

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - The content additions are excellent, and the inclusion of a mathematical model is very helpful when trying to understand the nature of MFA. One suggestion could be to wiki link more words that may be unfamiliar to those more unfamiliar with biology/engineering terminology (for example "isopotomers" or "steady-state"). In addition, I am a bit confused about isotopically stationary and nonstationary MFA - what isotopes are commonly used?
 * What are the strengths of the content added? -The methodology behind MFA is very essential when trying to understand the full picture, and it had a very concise and complete overview. In addition, software was a nice addition, and provided additional background on how MFA is being treated today.

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? -There were 11 resources added, making it 18 resources total. There is a good mix of primary and secondary sources; however, there are some errors ("check date values in...). I had this problem too, and it's likely because there is a value under the "date" box that the program does not recognize, like a random string. If you get rid of that, it may go away.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? -Metabolomic flux analysis can be applicable to Molecular Biotechnology, because analysis and quantification of metabolites is essential when applying biotechnology to exploit metabolism.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? -Perhaps a brief historical background could be provided (scientists/mathematicians who were instrumental in creating the methods of MFA, the first attempts in quantifying metabolites in the system, why the MFA techniques used today are the best methods, etc.)
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? Besides a slight historical context for background, perhaps pictures could be useful (flowcharts/diagrams, if there are any applicable).