User:Tylernovsak/Viperin/BrianRatnasinghe 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? (provide username) - tylernovsak
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Viperin

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - yes
 * 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? - no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - concise

Lead evaluation
The main problem with the lead is the lack of Interferon explanation. Use of the acronym IFN without the some kind of brief introduction to the concept could leave the reader very confused. A link to the Interferon wiki article should also be present in the intro. The intro also does not layout the various sections present in the article as the course suggests. Although, i am personally skeptical as to weather or not that is necessary.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Kinda
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - More content can always be added. Weather or not you have enough content is up to your own judgement.

Content evaluation
You claim, "Recently, it is reported that viperin could be induced in either IFN-dependent or IFN-independent pathway", but your references are form 2014, 2012 and 2001. None of these are particularly recent and 2001 was 19 years ago.

In the Function section you describe the different types of interferons, but only go as far as to describe one type. I would either not mention the other types or give a brief description of what each type does.

In the Cellular Localization section you discuss HCV NS proteins with no transition to describe what they are.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - no

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance are fine.

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? - yes
 * Are the sources current? - kinda
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - yes

Sources and references evaluation
Issues are in the content not in references. Additional references will come with increased content.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - variable
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes

Organization evaluation
Generally speaking the flow of the article falters when transitioning between things you did and didn't write. Some kind of transition sentence detailing the principal components that you talk about would go a long way.

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? - the content is new and potentially important
 * How can the content added be improved? - further explanation of content and tie-ins to other content

Overall evaluation
Good content, but could be more concise via explanation of acronyms and tie-ins to other content. These explanations will also help with the flow/readability of the article.