User:Ymukohya/Oroidin/Essdeee Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ymukohya


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymukohya/Oroidin?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Oroidin

Evaluate the drafted changes
Here is your peer review!:)

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. Two more sentences were added to provide more clarity
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead includes the original introductory sentence and the new sentences added give more relevant information about what an oroidin is
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead includes a brief description about the articles major sections. For example, the lead mentions oroidin leading to many biological activities and there is a section that talks about biological activities
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include any information that isn't present in the article. The original lead mentioned antimalarial activity but that was removed and edited out.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and easy to understand. It isn't overly complex or confusing and gives the reader the general basis for what the rest of the article is going to talk about

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic. The existing article only consisted of one intro sentence, so the new content expanded the article in more depth. Background information is given about oroidin including its structural makeup as well as its biological activities. Relevant links to other wikipedia articles are also included.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Based on the citations, most of the information is up to date. There are a few journal articles from before the 2000s however, I do not believe that this is an indicator that the information is inaccurate or outdated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Because the original article didn't have much information to begin with, it's hard to tell if theres information missing. However, it mostly looks well put together. A suggestion I have, is to expand a little bit in the Lead for the sentence "The complexity of oroidin structure leads to various biological activities." I think it's a bit vague and doesn't necessarily give an idea about what direction that sentence is going in. In addition, in the article, I think it would be beneficial to either show a comparison figure of pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole or add a citation/link to another wikipedia article just so some background information is provided. The sentence "It belongs to the pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole structural class of secondary metabolites and shows structural complexity and many biological activities" can be expanded on or explained a bit more because if someone (like myself) doesn't necessarily know what pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole is, the information may not seem as meaningful as it is. I see that you've decided to keep the structure figure and the infobox which I think is a good call! It's easy to read and gives all the important information in a concise and organized manner. I think it would also benefit your article if you added more images, possibly in the biological activities section. I think that would provide more clarity in terms of some of the hyperlinked words (biofilm, African sleeping sickness, etc.) and tie everything in that section together. Also, under the ecological function section, the sentence  "Some of the success of marine sponges could be due to the taxonomy conserved chemical defense" is a bit vague. I think it could be worded slightly better and a bit of clarity could be provided. What is a taxonomy conserved chemical defense?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes this topic deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps. It is more of an obscure scientific topic that isn't really taught. The article addresses this topic even though it isn't heard of typically.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes the content added is neutral. There is no bias and the information is provided in a clear, concise way
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the ecological function section is a little underepresented. I think it could be explained a bit more or more information could be provided. It seems a bit short which makes me wonder if it needs to be under its own heading, or if it could be added in somewhere else. In my opinion, you should expand a little more on that paragraph and keep it under its own heading. Maybe add a photo as well
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? The content added doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another. The tone of the paper is neutral and just the information, without any sort of bias, is given.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part, all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sentences "Oroidin analogues have the modified structure of original Oroidin. Analogues with increasing number of carbon in the alkane component of Oroidin show higher cytotoxicity than original Oroidin towards cancer cells, making Oroidin analogs a promising anticancer drug candidate." do not include a citation. I'm unsure whether citation [6] in the sentence below is the citation for all of the sentences in that paragraph.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes the content accurately reflects what the cited sources say
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are current for the most part. There is one source that is from 1971 and another from 2001 however, I do believe that they are still relevant and provide a good source of information.
 * 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.) The article only uses peer reviewed articles as sources and there are no news coverages or random websites used. I think the sources are sufficient and reliable in terms of providing credible information for the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links work:)

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written. It's concise and easy to understand and read. I think some dead words could be removed, and I think you could probably remove the word "Oroidin" in alot of the sentences as well. For example, "Oroidin analogues have the modified structure of original Oroidin. Analogues with increasing number of carbon in the alkane component of Oroidin show higher cytotoxicity than original Oroidin towards cancer cells, making Oroidin analogs a promising anticancer drug candidate. Oroidin analogues appear to inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells the most." The word is used alot so I suggest you cut down/make the sentence more concise so that you don't have to keep using the word over and over.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content has 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? Yes, the content added is well organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. However, I think that the ecological function section could be expanded a bit more because it seems a little vague. I would suggest either expanding on that section more, or removing it all together and finding place for it some place else in the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is an info box and one image already in the article from the previous authors work. I think adding a few more pictures in, especially in the biological activities section will help provide more clarity and will be more visually appealing.
 * Are images well-captioned? Image from previous authors work isn't captioned but info box is provided underneath so I guess that counts (?)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes the image is in the public domain and is not subject to copyright
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is off to the side. I think the addition of new images will make the article more visually appealing

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? Yes the article is supported by 7 reliable secondary sources, all from journal articles
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not too long, good sources that 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? Yes, it follows the patterns of other similar articles. It already had an infobox off to the side and includes section headings as well
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes the article links to many other relevant articles

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes! The article is much more complete as it only started with 2 sentences. The author provided more clarity and expanded on the article. New sections such as biological activities and ecological function was added and more information was added to the Lead as well. Someone looking for information about Oroidin would definitely be able to gain a greater understanding about the topic from this article as opposed to the previous version that just provided a simple definition.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Overall, the content is very interesting, relevant and easy to follow. I like how the author provided background knowledge about Oroidin and provided a ton of links to other articles so the reader isn't left confused. I especially found the Biological activities section to be super interesting!
 * How can the content added be improved? I think you should focus on expanding some of your information. Here are some example sentences (some that I mentioned earlier) that I think you should revisit again and expand on:
 * "The complexity of oroidin structure leads to various biological activities" --> expand more, the word various is a bit vague
 * "It belongs to the pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole structural class of secondary metabolites and shows structural complexity and many biological activities" --> explain pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole by either adding a link to another wikipedia article or directly explaining what it is in the paragraph. I personally was unfamiliar with what pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole, and I think the average reader would be too. Some clarity in this area of the paragraph would remove any confusion among readers.
 * "Oroidin analogues appear to inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells the most." --> expand more. How do they appear to inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells the most? Explain.
 * "Oroidin analogues have the modified structure of original Oroidin. Analogues with increasing number of carbon in the alkane component of Oroidin show higher cytotoxicity than original Oroidin towards cancer cells, making Oroidin analogs a promising anticancer drug candidate. Oroidin analogues appear to inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells the most" --> make more concise so the word Oroidin isn't repeated alot.
 * "Bacteria biofilm leads to skin radiation and is typically resistance to antibiotics" --> resistant
 * "Oroidin kills and/or inhibits the growth of Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense (causes African sleeping sickness), Trypanosoma cruzi, (causes Chagas disease), Leishmania donovani (causes Leishmaniasis), and Plasmodium falciparum (causes malaria), making Oroidin potential treatment for these diseases." --> you could probably change the second Oroidin into just "it" (Oroidin kills and/or inhibts the growth of.........making it a potential treatment for these diseases)
 * "Therefore, the antibiofilm activity of Oroidin is important for the development of effective treatment for this skin infection" --> which skin infection?
 * "Some of the success of marine sponges could be due to the taxonomy conserved chemical defense" --> expand.

Great work! :)

Letter of Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I address the reviewer's comments below and responded to each concern point-by-point.


 * I think adding a few more pictures in, especially in the biological activities section will help provide more clarity and will be more visually appealing.

I have added a picture of sea sponge Agelas in the ecological function section. We understand that adding a picture in the biological activities section would provide more clarity. However, I believe that images of medicines or diseases would not be suitable for chemical molecules wikipedia articles. Readers are looking for information about the molecules and may not want to see images of parasites or diseases.


 * "The complexity of oroidin structure leads to various biological activities" --> expand more, the word various is a bit vague

I accept this feedback and added a sentence to explain how wide biological activities of Oroidin leads to medicine applications


 * "It belongs to the pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole structural class of secondary metabolites and shows structural complexity and many biological activities" --> explain pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole by either adding a link to another wikipedia article or directly explaining what it is in the paragraph. I personally was unfamiliar with what pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole, and I think the average reader would be too. Some clarity in this area of the paragraph would remove any confusion among readers.

I have added two sentences to explain pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole. There is no wikipedia article on pyrrole-2-aminoimidazole.


 * "Oroidin analogues appear to inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells the most." --> expand more. How do they appear to inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells the most? Explain.

I have added a sentence and mentioned that the exact mechanism behind Oroidin inhibiting colon cancer cells is still unknown.


 * "Oroidin analogues have the modified structure of original Oroidin. Analogues with increasing number of carbon in the alkane component of Oroidin show higher cytotoxicity than original Oroidin towards cancer cells, making Oroidin analogs a promising anticancer drug candidate. Oroidin analogues appear to inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells the most" --> make more concise so the word Oroidin isn't repeated alot.

I have made these sentences more concise and reduced using Oroidin.


 * "Bacteria biofilm leads to skin radiation and is typically resistance to antibiotics" --> resistant

I have corrected to "resistant".


 * "Oroidin kills and/or inhibits the growth of Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense (causes African sleeping sickness), Trypanosoma cruzi, (causes Chagas disease), Leishmania donovani (causes Leishmaniasis), and Plasmodium falciparum (causes malaria), making Oroidin potential treatment for these diseases." --> you could probably change the second Oroidin into just "it" (Oroidin kills and/or inhibts the growth of.........making it a potential treatment for these diseases)

I have changed the second Oroidin into "it" to avoid repeating the use of "Oroidin".


 * "Therefore, the antibiofilm activity of Oroidin is important for the development of effective treatment for this skin infection" --> which skin infection?

The reviewer correctly observed that "this skin infection" is too vague and does not describe what skin infection. I have adjusted this sentence and changed to "biofilm skin infection".


 * "Some of the success of marine sponges could be due to the taxonomy conserved chemical defense" --> expand.

I have changed "taxonomy conserved" into "evolutionary conserved" and added a link to a wikipedia article.

I trust that you will find that I have been through and responsive to the reviewer's comments. Again, I thank the reviewer for helping improve my article.

Sincerely,

ymukohya