User:Yadi Huo/Edman degradation/Yutong Wu Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yadi Huo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yadi_Huo/Edman_degradation&veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&redirect=no
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Edman degradation

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.)

Answers to General Questions:

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything in the article relevant to the article topic. In addition, there isn't anything that distracted me.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral and there are't any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there aren't viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * I have checked the citations and the links work. The source supports the claims in the article.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes, it is. The information comes from research articles. In addition, these are neutral sources.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * No, there isn't any information out of date. And there isn't anything missing that should be added.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes, it is. The information comes from research articles. In addition, these are neutral sources.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * No, there isn't any information out of date. And there isn't anything missing that should be added.
 * No, there isn't any information out of date. And there isn't anything missing that should be added.

Some Specific Suggestions:

 * I think adding the link to the wikipedia article titled "Phenyl isothiocyanate" in the beginning part of the article would be great in terms of editing. I think the linking would provide the audience with better understanding of the concept of PITC and thus better knowledge of the overall article with this simple link to the existing article of phenyl isothiocyanate.
 * In addition, I really like the section you added for the comparison between Edman degradation, mass spectroscopy and Sanger sequencing. I think this is a really clear and through comparison. I feel like you could also list some sources which might relate to the comparison, and that would make your comparison looked more perfect.
 * I also think it would be good to expand the section of coupling analysis. This is just a suggestion, but I feel like you could explain a little bit more throughly of how people use Edman degradation for its applications and potentially also talk about the limitations of Edman degradation and why people do not use it for certain things. This might sound general, but I feel like you could add more details into this section of your article.
 * Lastly, I feel like it would be good to double check if the figures you added work when it has been published. I am sure that you could find similar figures that would work properly when displayed in the published version of the wikipedia article.
 * In general, I think your editing was great and you could keep working on editing this article to make it more perfect!
 * Lastly, I feel like it would be good to double check if the figures you added work when it has been published. I am sure that you could find similar figures that would work properly when displayed in the published version of the wikipedia article.
 * In general, I think your editing was great and you could keep working on editing this article to make it more perfect!
 * In general, I think your editing was great and you could keep working on editing this article to make it more perfect!
 * In general, I think your editing was great and you could keep working on editing this article to make it more perfect!