User:Tylernovsak/Viperin/Laurf15 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? (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?
 * Does the Lead 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?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I think you should create a lead. This portion of the article will contain the major sections outlined with brief descriptions.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All content in the article is relevant to the topic. I think a lot of the content can be expanded upon and adding a few more. I think some medical applications could be a great section to add if there is any.

Function: I think that this is a great section. Do not be afraid to edit the previous article to give the whole section a better flow. I also think that some of the content is hard to grasp. Maybe add more background information when referencing a new term so the reader can understand what is referenced. I also think you should create a reaction section after the function. Here you can add a schematic of the reaction for a visual aspect that is easy to read.

Structure: I would expand on the bits that you added. See if there are papers talking about what causes the different kinetic parameters and maybe add a table to show them. Explain what partially ordered and disordered means, talk about what a substrate is and what amino acids are essential for binding.

Cellular Isolation: This section needs a lot of work but it has a solid framework. You can expand on may

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I though all of your tone was neutral and was presented in a nice scientific way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The links worked and sources were from mainly high impact scientific journals.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I have sent you some of the grammatical errors and other organizational issues on the word document. I also added in some ways that might make the content be easier to read. I think your sections do make sense but I think adding in medical applications will also really help your article. Explain why it is important to do research on this enzyme and what can it do to help us?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There were no Images added.

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?

New Article Evaluation
NA

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
I think you contribution to the page was great but I think that a lot more can be added. I would also maybe re read what the original page has because there were a few typos and I felt like it was difficult to understand some of the content. I think you could maybe explain the content more and add more detail.