User talk:UrbaSag/sandbox

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (UrbaSag) Link to draft you're reviewing: User:UrbaSag/sandbox Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, some sections were added like the function and mechanism of Lipoyl synthase Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory section wasn't really included, it will be nice to write out a brief overview of the topic. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not included by Urba, this part could later be included. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not really, every piece of information mentioned was related to the topic. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation Leading section seems to be a bit lacking, could add more information to briefly go through the topic/ major sections of the article.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the references used were mostly within 10-20 years. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing included by Urba was out of the topic, yet she could include more detail in each section or add a section to talk about the application of Lipoyl synthase. Content evaluation Edits were added well, could add more detail.

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, the tone was neutral. 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, there wasn't bias found. Tone and balance evaluation The overall tone was nice and neutral.

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all of them worked. Sources and references evaluation The references were relevant to the information added.

Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The additions were easy to follow. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could tell. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is somehow, yet there could be some subsections added below each of the major section to provide more detail. Organization evaluation Overall, the organization was done nicely.

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

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not really so far. Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation Urban could consider to add 1 or 2 images in her article/ edits perhaps about the general mechanism of Lipoyl synthase.

For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is 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. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes. 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? Not that I was aware of. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not really. New Article Evaluation Overall, the new article uses reliable sources yet could maybe add some links to other articles so it's more discoverable.

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 seems more complete for sure. What are the strengths of the content added? The several major sections were laid out which was a good start. How can the content added be improved? Adding more detail or even 1 or 2 more major sections could be helpful. Overall evaluation The edits were nicely brought out, yet some more details could be added to further complete and improve the article.