User:AMYCREYNOLDS/Semiconservative replication/SamSenatore Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (AmyCReynolds)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AMYCREYNOLDS/Semiconservative replication

Lead
Guiding questions:

I think the leading paragraph's content is good, it has a solid over all summary of the rest of the article. I do think the second paragraph should be revised. It is pretty detailed description of the melson-stahl experiment. You don't come back to explain more details of the experiment later so it feels really unnecessary, I would remove some of the details, and expand on them later in the wiki.

Content
Guiding questions

"Different experiments were conducted to determine how DNA replicates" I would change this to multiple, because its a given that the experiments are different.

I would change the title of "further applications and advantages" to possibly just further applications. I don't think it is an advantage because it is the only way it happens in all cells, so there isn't an advantage to be had. Instead of "old" strand, I would say "original"

"DNA could have the ability to activate or deactivate certain areas on the newly synthesized strand that allows it to change the phenotype of the cell. This could be advantageous for the cell because it could activate a more favorable phenotype to aid in survival. Due to Natural selection, the more favorable phenotype would persist throughout the species. This gives rise to the idea of inheritance, or why certain phenotypes are inherited over another. " I don't understand this section. It seems a little out of left field and doesn't add much to the article. Semi-conservative replication doesn't need to be tied in with natural selection, and if you think it is necessary I would add more information and more sources. DNA doesn't access situations and change based on how DNA thinks would be best for survival.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

The tone is pretty neutral. I think the tone in this sentence seems a bit off: "Semiconservative replication provides many advantages for DNA. It is not only fast and accurate, but it has been found to allow DNA to be repaired easily and is responsible for phenotypic diversity in a few prokaryotic species". Phenotypic diversity in some prokaryotic species doesn't seem like it is an advantage for DNA. I would also not use the word advantage because it kind of reads like you are personifying DNA.

"This model of replication seemed most reasonable since it would allow each daughter strand to remain associated with its template strand." Semiconservative replication is a factual thing, saying it 'seemed most reasonable' makes it sound like someone just guessed that's how its done and no ones questioned it since.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Reliable sources. I would add more though as you are finishing up your paper. I think three is too few, adding more reliable/recent sources would add credibility.

Sources and references evaluation

Organization
Guiding questions:

I think it is organized, significantly more so than the original! I think adding an image would actually make it look more organized though because it would break up the page some.

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

I definitely think images would be really useful, its much easier to understand semiconservative replication if you can visualize it. Even the media from the original article would be fine.

An image depicting the melson-stahl experiment result would be useful.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

I peer reviewed the original article first on accident, then found yours and you made a huge improvement. Much more complete. You have made a huge step in the right direction. I do think revising the part on advantageous would be useful, or maybe replace it by expanding on other applications, or how it affects the phenotype in those few prokaryotes.