User talk:Jnashl24/Escherichia virus T4

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (Jnashl24) Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jnashl24/Escherichia virus T4 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? Lead evaluation

No lead for this article. Will evaluate other aspects.

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? Content evaluation

I really appreciate the detail about the transcriptional order and the details on the proteins that make up the tail of the bacteriophage! However, it can be easy to sound redundant with the newly added info. I would suggest that when talking about the hollow cylindrical tail, delete the sentence beginning with, "The T4's tail is hollow..." and mention the part of nucleic acid passing through the tube somewhere else in your added sentences. Leaning towards being concise will be helpful for the reader.

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? Tone and balance evaluation

Tone is neutral and states the basic facts of the virus particle structure. I do not see a bias in the communication of this bacteriophage.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? 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? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation

Source used is very comprehensive and thorough and not a primary source.

Authors come from all over the world, and over 1200 references are used in that article...wow!

It may be advantageous to pull evidence from more recent articles, just so that the information is the most relevant. However, there may not be eny more extensive research out there trying to elucidate the structure or function of T4, since it seems pretty well understood in this 2003 article.

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? Organization evaluation

Seems well organized, sentence structure is clear and makes sense. A suggestion I have for article organization would be to move the genome heading below the virus structure heading. When I think of the nature of viruses, I tend to think about what the structure looks like before thinking about how its genome is replicated or interpreted. That's just my opinion though, and it's a very small suggestion.

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? Images and media evaluation

No added images.

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? 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? New Article Evaluation

Not yet a new article, but I think adding more sources would be a good idea.

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? Overall evaluation

Overall, I would say this is a very good start. The information added is detailed and precise. I am glad you are adding a section on the transcription of the viral genome...its quite important to the Central Dogma of Biology! The only suggestion I have is to add more sources, and always make sure you are being as concise as possible when adding new information that may have already been mentioned in previous paragraph sentences. Great work!! AlveoliRavioli (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

peer review

I completed your review here: [[1]] Thanks! EthosNap (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)