User:Alexis Skipper/Testis-determining factor/Boucherdh Peer Review

Peer review

 * Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic? The revisions are very clear throughout the article (revisions were bolded). It would have been a little easier to compare the changes to the original article had that content been posted beneath the changes. Other than that, the content was relevant and flowed very nicely.


 * What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative. All of the information was incredibly interesting. I liked the fact that the article flowed. You didn't have run on sentences that could be a potential distraction to the reader. I particularly enjoyed reading about Swyer syndrome.


 * 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? My main suggestion is to be mindful of repeating transitional phrases. For example, you say, “there are exceptions, however, in which SRY plays a major role.” Approximately five or six sentences down, you start off utilizing the word “however.” Although this isn’t a massive issue, I would suggest using a different word.


 * Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. I personally have not seen any information that could be applicable to my own article.


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information? Sources seem reliable, although I suggest using sources from different websites. Three of the four sources you utilized were from "Genetics Home Reference". I suggest using other sources to back up the information you're placing within your article.


 * Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work? The links for the sources used worked properly, seem reliable, and have been reviewed/published within the last 11 years.


 * Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found. My main issue, which is incredibly minor, is to be careful over-using words. "However" was used twice within a close proximity of one another. You also use the term "individuals" to start of two different sentences back to back.


 * 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. There are several images on the original page. The photos pertaining to SRY is described throughout the article. Perhaps the photo pertaining to the location of SRY could be placed underneath the first SRY photo. I'm not entirely sure if the photo of the RNA expression pattern is really necessary to the article.


 * 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. https://dev.biologists.org/content/141/11/2195 Here is an article that has a really good image which explains not only how the testis are determined, but several other things as well. It also describes turning SRY expression off and epigenetic regulation of SRY gene.