User:Re332168/Ligase/Dasiomo Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they 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?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it 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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?
https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Re332168

User: Re332168

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Re332168/Ligase?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Ligase

Evaluate the drafted changes

The edited version of the article is more concise, precise, and easier to read.

However, some of the information that was removed could have been helpful for readers to better understand the concept. For instance, the original version provided detailed information about the six subclasses of ligases, which could have been useful for readers interested in learning about the various types of ligases. Furthermore, this information was relevant to the example, mentioned in "Ligase" section, of an enzyme linking two compounds and forming new bonds.

Unfortunately, not much was added or edited in the article. Instead, the removal of some information reduced the article's detail.

Additionally, the reference section was removed, and external website URLs were placed in the middle of the article without proper citation. It would have been better to keep the reference section and have a separate section for external websites. It is also important to verify and update the retrieval date of the sole reference that supports the data to ensure the information is current.

Furthermore, there are gaps between some sentences in the same paragraph, which should be addressed. In the "Nomenclature" section, the first sentence in bold font and parenthesis is confusing as the added information is not cohesive with the rest of the sentence. The external website added to the article relates to the same topic and could have been included in the same paragraph.

There are no image added.

This article appears to be a challenging one to edit as it appears to be mostly complete. Although the writer added some useful information and shortened the article, it would be beneficial to enhance the article's depth and accuracy by including more details and images instead of removing useful information. Therefore, I suggest adding a separate section for references and external sources to properly cite external websites and make it easier for readers to find the information they need.

~Dasiomo