User:Aa2021dna/Polygenic score/Storyminusthes Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Aa2021dna


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Aa2021dna/Polygenic score


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Polygenic score

Lead:
It does not appear you have edited the lead at all, so I did not devote a lot of attention to it. However, it does look like the last paragraph of the lead could use some work, as there are some somewhat arbitrarily chosen references to primary papers that probably aren't necessary.

Content:

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Overall, it appears to be mostly relevant. It looks like you mostly focused on the "Calculating a polygenic risk score" and "Methods for developing polygenic scores" sections. I think one thing that could be useful is better explaining why those two things are different sections. I think a casual reader would see the calculation section and assume that was how to build a score and not realize why the more complicated methods are necessary. I think a simple way to do that would be to change the phrasing of "A key consideration in developing polygenic scores is which SNPs and the number of SNPs to include" to explicitly say that is what you mean when you talk about developing a risk score.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It looks like you've done a good job of finding pretty recent articles without relying too heavily on primary sources - you mostly appear to have review articles, which is good.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I 'm not sure if you added the background section on DNA, but I'm not sure it needs to be quite as basic as it is (for example, I definitely don't think it needs to discuss the four bases found in DNA). The background section is also very human-focused, and could probably be edited to just include a basic overview of GWAS.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Overall, the content is fairly neutral, though there are some areas where I think there are subtle "judgments". For example, saying "Many other creative applications" is a bit biased, because it is your own personal opinion that these approaches are creative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I don't see any heavily biased sections.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overall, the article is pretty human-focused, but I know those are the sections you were most interested in editing, so I think that's okay to leave the non-human things for other people to update.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Nothing you've added seems to be trying to argue in any particular direction.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I think you've done a pretty good job of using secondary sources of information. The methods section does have some primary sources, but I think that's probably appropriate for the topic. I would encourage you to re-use some citations that are good secondary sources in the methods section. For example, I think the Choi et al. article you have as the current reference 24 has a lot of general information on different approaches and could probably be re-cited in the methods section as a secondary source to reduce the reliance on primary articles only. I also think the end of the "Calculating a polygenic risk score" section could use some additional citations, particularly the sentences starting with "Most often, SNPs have two possible alleles".
 * 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? I think the sources are very appropriate - they are current articles, and you've linked to a lot of the more general secondary sources/reviews where available.
 * 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.) Again, I think you've done a really good job of using review articles, which are peer-reviewed but secondary sources.
 * This is a minor thing, but there are a lot of instances in which the citation appears before the period at the end of the sentence, and I think Wikipedia formatting standards are typically to put the citation after the punctuation.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? This is a pretty technical topic, so it can definitely be hard to break it down for a non-technical audience. I think you've done a good job of trying to keep it basic and of providing a simple explanation of techniques. I did find the sentence "The effect size, or weight, must therefore be specified as a difference from the other allele, the non-risk increasing allele, as is usually done in regression analysis" a bit confusing - I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say in that sentence. I also think the last two sentences in the methods section are a little vague and could use a little more explanation.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any glaring errors. I do think this sentence in the history section is a little awkward grammatically - "an individual's breeding value was the sum of single nucleotide polymorphism weight by their effect on a trait". I think you can replace "single nucleotide polymorphism" with SNP, since that abbreviation has already been introduced, and I think you need to restructure the end of the sentence a little to clarify what you mean by "SNP weight by their effect on a trait".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I like the organization. It looks like you've added a separate section for the applications in non-human species, which I think makes a lot of sense.