User:ZS010270/Undecaprenyl Phosphate/Sparkly Amoeba Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ZS010270


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZS010270/Undecaprenyl_Phosphate?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything is relevant and on topic.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is neutral. The claims on the importance of the topic are supported by in-text citations.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, they review many different aspects of the topic.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The citation links work. The only issue is on reference 3 it is a book and it looks like the link takes us to the purchasing page or the wikipedia book sources page which when the ISBN is entered does not take us anywhere. I would say if they can somehow add either a different source with open access or somehow through wikipedia add the actual link to the online book. That would make it so readers can access this source.

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?

The information comes from books, journals, and articles. We did not notice any bias.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

Add more references throughout the article. Citations seem to be lacking a bit. One of the references needs a date to be attached.