User:Zhammy/Leukotriene-A4 hydrolase/Lm4p3y6 Peer Review

General info
Zhammy
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Zhammy/Leukotriene-A4 hydrolase
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Leukotriene-A4 hydrolase

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.)

Hi Zhammy, please find my peer review for your chosen article below.

Lead
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has not been added to reflect new changes. If you're in progress of editing the lead, I'll suggest adding a note on the sandbox draft that you'll make changes to the lead part
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -Yes, the lead clearly states the function of the gene.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -No. I would also recommend briefly introducing (maybe in a sentence) the importance of this gene and its functions. Why are their functions important to the human body?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -No, it doesn't.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -The lead is very concise.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes, it is. You've added the description to the picture, which is the only thing that exists in the original article page. This can give an idea to broader audience of what's happening in the picture, especially for the audience that have no idea how to read arrow pushing in mechanisms.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? -Yes (no updated changes found on the mechanism after then).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -I think you explained the mechanism briefly in the diagram. However, I think it may be difficult for some people to relate what you've written and the mechanism shown in the figure. I think you can consider making changes or labelling to the figure and refer to them in your description. It may also be difficult for people to visualize to mechanism as the figure included everything in one step, you can consider briefly describing them/ attaching specific terms, such as epoxides, or ring opening, to existing pages on Wiki. (I may be wrong but the arrow of the water molecule looks kind of odd?)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?-Not that I'm aware of.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? -Yes, it's just describing the mechanism.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -No. The paragraph added was descriptive not biased.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -A secondary source (a review article) was cited, however, (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't see how the additional sources are related to the mechanism added. It seems like the additional sources you've added are supporting the existing content on the current article. Could you maybe find some sources on the current article page/other sources that could back up your description on the mechanism?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) -I can't find the part in the article that reflects the added content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -I think the sources focused more on the identity of the gene and how it worked with other enzymes, rather than the catalyzed reaction mechanism.
 * Are the sources current? -The first source that you added (the review article), is quite recent. However, some sources on the current article page seems to be really old, you may consider adding more recent ones. If it's difficult to find primary literatures/textbook readings, review literature may also work.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? -There were only a few sources, with limited diversity. Searching for more diverse source (not just articles/journals) would be a good idea.
 * 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.)-This one focuses more on the catalyzed reaction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1098882307000081?via%3Dihub
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -The 3rd source on the current article does not work. You haven't insert hyperlinks for the two additional sources, but I copied and pasted the website address to test them, and there seems to be an error with the websit of your first additional source in your sandbox.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written- It is very concise. However, I would recommend linking specific terms to existing wiki pages for audience to better visualize the process. You can also refer to the picture when describing so they are complementary.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -Not really, I've re-written your paragraph a bit below for your reference, the bolded ones are changes I made. "Leukotriene A4 Hydrolase catalyzes the reaction, which converts leukotriene A4 to leukotriene B4. The leukotriene A4 structure contains an epoxide functional group, which is highly reactive due to its ring strain. Leukotriene A4 Hydrolase adds a water molecule across the epoxide ring on leukotriene A4. The addition of the water molecule opens the epoxide ring and causes the formation of the hydroxyl group at the carbon attached to the oxygen from the epoxide. The second carbon in the epoxide ring remains the same, resulting in leukotriene B4."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -Yes. However, I wonder if there are more subtopics that could be added, like applications.

Images and Media
You did not add any image, however, you can consider making some changes to the pre-existing catalyzed reaction mechanism as I found it to be rather confusing, especially how the top molecule transform to the bottom one after a series of arrow pushing. (In my opinion only.)

Overall impressions
I think this is absolutely a great start. The addition of a description for the mechanism in addition to the single image with the extremely simplified captions helps audience to visualize the process. You kept the tone to be throrough and present the content in a very concise manner. I would recommend looking into the sources and try to include more diverge/recent sources. The pre-existing image is also quite confusing. You can consider editing/remaking a figure such that it is complementary to your added content. Good luck!

Candace

Response to Peer Review
Dear peer reviewer,

thank you for taking the time to review my article and give suggestions for improvement.

Regarding the mechanism paragraph, I found a reliable source on the topic that supports my paragraph. I also hyperlinked different function groups involved in the mechanism to guide readers in case they need more background information as you suggested. Thank you for the grammatical edits for the paragraph, I have made these changes for better flow as well.

The photo of the mechanism is unfortunately still unchanged. I was unable to get to this part of the out reach project and deeply regret the insufficient time to finish this part of the article. I am hoping my paragraph can still guide readers and makes the article more accessible than it was before.

I also added more background information into the lead giving more context to the enzyme. I deleted some information from the lead that was actually incorrect, and this also got rid of all the sources used in the article. So the only source in the article is the one I found now. I would have added more subtopics as you suggested, however the main subtopic would be related to the immune system as this enzyme catalyzes the reaction that produces proteins directly related to our health, but this would have gone against the rules of our assignment since wikipedia is very strict with their edits regarding health.

Thank you again for you time and edits, I hope my changes improved the article further.

- Zhammy.