User:W1i2k3i4p5e6d/Cytidine diphosphate/UTK443 Peer Review

General info
W1i2k3i4p5e6d
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:W1i2k3i4p5e6d/Cytidine diphosphate
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cytidine diphosphate

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, W1i2k3i4p5e6d updated a stub and the updates are included in the current version.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence identifies CDP as a nucleoside diphosphate and subsequent sentences further describe the most relevant information about the compound.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there are no sections in this article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and includes the basic, relevant information. As this article is filled in, each section added by W1i2k3i4p5e6d can be reorganixed into the article's major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content describes CDP, its function, and its formation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up-to-date. The sources were all published within the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Each point can be expanded into major sections, but W1i2k3i4p5e6d added some basic information and the added content is appropriate.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral. It comes fromthree different, recent sources that do not have conflicts of interest.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Overrepresented, or underrepresented viewpoints? Does it attempt to persuade the reader in favor of or away from a position?
 * No. There are no opinions in this article and the sources are reliable and unbiased. The added content reflects the known facts about CDP.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all refrences are from reputable sources that are unbiased and reliable.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content is accurate, although it can use some restructuring so it does not seem to directly pull from the sources and is instead a summary of the content. Due to the nature of the added content, it may be difficult to reword the added content, but that may be a possiblity as the stub is expanded.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources provide current knowledge of the topic (within the 2010s) and include all the information required for the added content.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by men and women, people of color, etc.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * These sources are some of the best on the topic. Inclusion of more sources from textbooks may strengthen this piece, but the included sources are good on their own as well.
 * 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 is easy to read and does not include superflous language. It is clear and accurate.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is not broken down into sections. Major sections can be added to seperate the Lead, uses of CDP, and how it is formed. As previously mentioned, this can be done when the stub is expanded, but adding this sections can definetly make the article more organized and consice.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * The article is supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. THere is significant coverage of the subject using reliable sources.
 * 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?
 * There are no section headings, but the added information is in-line with other Leads on similar topics.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, there are plenty of links to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is more complete with the added content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It greatly expands the article and includes the most relevant and basic information about CDP.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be organized into subsections. More sources can be added from textbooks or other scientific and undisputable publications.

Overall, the added content is a great addition to the article. It provides a concise and accurate characterization of CDP using reliable and unbiased sources. It can be improved by adding major sections and including mor information with more sources, however this is certainly a great addition.

-Umida Khakimova