User:SushiLover135/Plastocyanin/ScienceBubble 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? SushiLover135
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SushiLover135/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no bias claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints are neutral.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added does not attempt yo persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content added has a few grammatical errors (ex. Spinach was.. should be Spinach is)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? The images are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The image adheres to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is laid out well but since the image is targeted towards the structure of plastocynanin, the image should be placed near that section.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Plastocyanin- SushiLover135


 * 1) The article discusses the main points of Plastocyanin (when it comes to structure and function)
 * 2) I am very sure that the data and information presented is up to date.
 * 3) All references and citations are correct, or at least the ones I have checked. The references are reliable.
 * 4) The image of the structure of Plastocyanin does not seem to be their own work, he/she should reference who the image belongs to in the image's caption and not just as part of the reference list.
 * 5) The article is neutral and there seems to be no type of bias or misleading information.