User:Trevorburnes/Mitochondrial ribosome/Benediktusrayo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

trevorburnes


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trevorburnes/Mitochondrial_ribosome?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mitochondrial ribosome

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.)

Content

 * The table with Sedimentation Coefficient, Number of Proteins, and Number of rRNAs is a well-designed and condensed way to represent information about different ribosome properties. However, a little more context on what does those number represent would be helpful, including description of what LSU/SSU mean.
 * If the author can expand more about the advantages / disadvantages of mitoribosomes as opposed to the others that are listed on the table, that would be helpful to help us understand better about mitoribosomes. A paragraph of explanation on mitoribosomes' properties would also be a great addition!

Tone and Balance

 * The content presented here (both the previously written content and the content that were updated by author) are objectively informative. Studies that are presented here also seem to be neutral and do not have any agenda behind its content. Author was able to pick good references.

Sources and References

 * The sources included in this article were published by well-known journals and store crucial information about mitoribosomes.
 * Three links were randomly chosen and they all directed me to the right publication.

Feedback / General Impression

 * In general, I found that more description need to be added to the article. It does have a strong starting point and expansion to this section can definitely be promising, especially since the information contained in the table is just not explained enough. Once author shows more context and explanation to the table, the section is going to be well-developed.
 * Addition of another section may also be something that author would like to consider, since the original article does not have a lot of information on mitoribosomes in general. The "Function" section has a lot of room that the author can fill. Author may include more relevance of this structure or what are potential diagnostic/therapeutic application that might utilize the nature of mitoribosomes.
 * It seems like a different author is working on updating the article. Try to communicate with the other editor to avoid the addition of same information.