User:AMYCREYNOLDS/Semiconservative replication/Sarahsuber Peer Review

General info

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

Overall evaluation
1.Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?

'''Yes. Both the original and revised versions were copied into the sandbox. The revised portion provides a clearer and more detailed explanation of the topic; however, I felt that the explanation of the Meselson-Stahl experiment was a little rushed and that the average person would not be able to understand this. Perhaps an image could be added to help illustrate the experiment, and the Messelson-Stahl article should be linked in the explanation.'''

2.What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative.

'''I like how the author added a new section to convey the relevance of semiconservative replication in regards to new and exciting innovations relating to genetics. I also think she did a much better job of defining the topic than the original article.'''

3.What overall adjustments do you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

'''More links to other Wikipedia articles should be added in order for people to better understand the topics. This would be useful when she mentions topics like methylation, transcription, base pairs, and nucleotide (which are not linked in the original article either). I also think more sections of the original article should be revisited'''.

4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.

'''In the author’s newly created “Further Applications and Advantages” section, she mentions methylation and activation or deactivation of certain genes. These are topics that relate directly to epigenetics.'''

5.Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?

I '''did question the relevance of the second article, but I was unable to access the full text (I kept running into problems when I tried to go through the library’s database), so I cannot be completely sure. It looked like a paper describing the results of a singular experiment, which are not typically the most reliable sources. It was also an older article.'''

6.Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?

'''Her second reference is to a paper written in 1976. Her first reference is to a paper published in 2004, but it presents accurate and important information, with reference to several studies and experiments. Her third source was newer (2019). All of her links worked.'''

7.Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.

The article looked well-organized, and I did not spot any grammatical errors in the revised or newly created sections of the article.

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 images are acceptable and clearly described. See associated tutorial to review Wiki image requirements. Summarize your findings.

The picture was good, but there are better images of the process (I couldn’t understand why it said “not found to be biologically significant” on the image).

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.

'''Dovrat, Daniel; Dahan, Danielle; Sherman, Shachar; Tsirkas, Ioannis; Elia, Natalie; Aharoni, Amir (2018-07). "A Live-Cell Imaging Approach for Measuring DNA Replication Rates". Cell Reports. 24 (1): 252–258. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.06.018. ISSN 2211-1247.'''

'''This reference describes a new process in which the rate of DNA replication can be determined. It also provides important background on both the complexity and efficiency of DNA replication. This article could be used in place of or alongside her second reference, which is older and may be less reliable.'''