User talk:D.Bhandal/Draft sandbox

Peer Review

Grammar check

-         No mistakes

Can anything else be added?

-         No information that I can tell. You added a lot of really good information to an article that originally didn’t have much content. Like you said in your edit proposal, an image of some sort could be a good addition.

Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive?

-         No

Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic?

-         Yes

Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much?

-         Everything is explained thoroughly

Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail

-         Good reading level for general

Does the organization make sense? i.e. order of sections/content; content within the sections

-         Organization makes sense. There’s a lot of information being presented here, so the separation of metabolism into synthesis and breakdown with additional subdivisions for each section keeps the article nicely organized so people can focus on select information

Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat self-explanatory?

-         Yes

Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused?

-         Yes, many citations are used, none overused

Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced?

-         Yes

Can the article be interpreted as medical advice?

-         No

Sarickson (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review- Sazfar21 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

•	Grammar check

•	Done. Check your history; there were not too many errors, mostly just minor run ons and areas that seemed to misuse colons.

•	Can anything else be added?

•	No. This is an incredibly thorough article. Normally I would suggest adding a section on regulation since we emphasized it so heavily in class but with how thorough you have already been, it’s probably fine to just leave something on the talk page suggesting someone add that section one day.

•	Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive?

•	It is not repetitive nor is it inconsistent. It talks about a wide variety of subjects in an order that makes sense and remains relevant for the most part, aside from what will be addressed in the next question.

•	Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic?

•	This was my major issue. The catabolism section talked about denaturation and various enzymes that handle protein breakdown and deactivation, so everything seemed fully relevant. However, I feel like the anabolism section was generally incredibly long. It seemed really unnecessary to be laying out the full processes of transcription, translation, etc. Most students already know off the tops of their heads what those processes are, and in an article like this, I honestly feel like it would have been enough to just mention the processes and link the articles that already exist on those topics. It is definitely relevant, but it isn’t really content that I feel is absolutely necessary in this article since each of those topics is both generally well known and thoroughly covered in their own articles.

•	Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much?

•	Things are explained in great depth. This is awesome in some places like the catabolism section, but as I mentioned above, it feels a little unnecessary in the anabolism section since everything being discussed already has a thorough article on Wikipedia on top of being fairly well-known by most students to begin with. Albeit with less detail, I’m fairly certain most high schools cover the processes of transcription and translation and most students even at very young ages know them well enough that the info seems unneeded.

•	Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail

•	Generally in the middle but leaning a little towards too technical. I feel like it was definitely a good sort of technical though; it made the article a little harder to read but was still perfectly readable and actually felt pretty scientific. I’d say that the slight lean towards technical actually makes it a well-balanced read and it actual feels like a scientific article to me. Stuff like exact subunits of proteins, for example, feels a little overkill but isn’t so hard to understand and generally just enhances the article. Nice job on this part. •	Does the organization make sense? Ie order of sections/content; content within the sections.

•	Yes. The major processes of catabolism and anabolism are discussed in the intro briefly and then have their own sections. Within the sections the sub-sections generally seem to flow well (though catabolism wouldn’t really have as much of an order to it, so the order of the subsections likely won’t matter there). I would suggest briefly stating that the environment has effects as well in the intro to set up the basis for the section present late in the article.

•	Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat selfexplanatory.

•	As sort of mentioned above in the organization section, yes. There is plenty of proper organization and flow. Everything is actually highly organized and places in appropriate sections.

•	Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused?

•	Yes, aside from one or two spots that just said “insert citation”. There seems to be a pretty large count of references, so I feel like there are enough citations and sources. That being said, a few of the sources are used 3 to 4 times each (probably since this was extremely thoroughly written and quite long in some places, which is great but led to some overuse). The Donald piece in particular is cited three times in a single section and is the only reference present for that section, so you may want to consider changing that a bit.

•	Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced?

•	Yes. As far as I could tell, only facts and knowledge were discussed. There was very little that could be interpreted as bias (honestly there was no argument to be biased about, it felt very objective and informative).

•	Can the article be interpreted as medical advice?

•	No. Medical implications are nowhere to be found.

Sazfar21 (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)