User:Tobeornottobe1/1-Deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate/Nataliya.pavlyk Peer Review

The lead has not been modified with the addition of a citation only. It includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes article's topic. However, the lead could use more work in the future since it is only 1 sentence long. The lead does not have a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. It is too concise.

The content that was added is relevant to the topic, and expands upon it. It is up to date. There is not content that does not belong. The new section that was added, explains the function of DXD as a precursor well and how it is made. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The tone of added material is neutral, and there are no heavily biased claims. There are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints. The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position.

The publications are from reliable sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking. The sources are verifiable and independent of the subject. 2 of the sources are secondary and 1 is primary. The primary source is used for straightforward descriptive statements of facts, without requiring specialized knowledge.

The content added is well written and concise. It does not have grammatical or spelling errors. The added content is well organized into a single section that only contains relevant information to that section and the topic.

The article contains an image that is well captioned to enhance the understanding of the topic. The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall, the article has a good start but needs some more work. The lead is insufficient and needs to be expended. Additionally, more sections need to be added. The newly added section about regulation is well written and provides enough concise detail. The added content has improved the article's quality.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)