User:AMYCREYNOLDS/Semiconservative replication/KBednarik Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.


 * 1) Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? It is obvious which sections of the article have been revised. Is the new content relevant to the topic? The new content added is definitely related to the topic.
 * 2) What does the article do well? The addition of the process Meselson-Stahl used in their experiment was a great addition. This expounded on the information given in the original article. Is there anything from your review that impressed you? This was very well written. Great additions using the information we learned in class! You definitely made this relevant to the course. Any particular information that you found especially informative.
 * 3) What overall adjustments do you suggest the author apply to the article? The biggest thing that stood out to me as a grammar nerd is just grammatical errors. Why would those changes be an improvement? Every good published article needs correct grammar. What's the most important thing the author could to do improve the article? Just a few minor corrections would make this ready to go.
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. There wasn't anything specifically that I could use for my own article.
 * 5) Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information? Yes, all new content is back up by a reliable source of information.
 * 6) Are the sources fairly current (>2015)? There was one article from 1976, but it was definitely relevant to the article. Also, in the link for this article, there is a line after the link in red that says, "Check date values in: |date=(help)". I'm not sure what this is. I would suggest checking that out. There was also an article from 2004, but again, this article was relevant for the addition. There does not seem to be many recent articles on this topic that would fit the >2015 criteria. Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links worked for me.
 * 7) Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found. No comma needed after "The semiconservative model was anticipated by Nikolai Koltsov, and...". Change the → in "...using two radioisotopes→ nitrogen-15..." to a colon. There is an extra space between Meselson-Stahl in the second paragraph where it states "Meselson- Stahl confirmed that DNA...". Under "Further Applications and Advantages," the N in the natural selection hyperlink doesn't need to be capitalized.
 * 8) Student authors are responsible for all images on their page (even if not part of their revised subsection). Double check the original page to make sure the images are acceptable and clearly described. See associated tutorial to review Wiki image requirements. Summarize your findings. The picture on the main page was acceptable and clearly described. The image had the appropriate credits given.
 * 9) Identify at least one additional reference that you think may contribute to the article. Explain why you think this article would benefit from the new information. Be sure to provide the reference in your write-up. I commend you for this article. I searched over several days to find a recent (>2015) article on this subject. All the articles I found were older than 2015, with most being from the 1960s-1980s. This seems to be a relatively settled topic. If you wanted to take this beyond the topics you are covering, I found this article here that describes semiconservative replications across prokaryotes as well as eukaryotes. However, this doesn't seem to fit the theme of your addition. It may be something to look at to add to perhaps describe the process of DNA replication.