User:Alexis Skipper/Testis-determining factor/MDDominguez91 Peer Review

Peer review
Summary: The edits made to the article contribute a lot of information regarding disorders associated with the testis-determining factor. This type of information certainly fills a hole in the original article. The editor did a good job of indicating which sections of the article were edited. I believe the quality of the edits could be improved by focusing on some more organization. The information is valuable, but may be easier to understand if presented in a different way. As most of the writing is concerned with disorders, and what causes these disorders, some sort of table, or multiple sub headings may be valuable. The encyclopedia source is a bit dated, it was put together using articles from around the year 2001, but does provide a lot of the essential information needed for this article. All other sources used are very current and applicable. I would suggest utilizing more sources from NCBI and the pubmed database if the editor wants to add more information to the article.

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

'''It is very clear which sections have been revised. The editor has made all of their contributions bolded with a statement indicating that these bolded words are new. The new content is relevant to the topic, and is mainly concerned with diseases or irregularities associated with the topic.'''

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

'''The article does a good job of covering some of the possible scenarios that may arise from misplacement of the SRY gene. There are several different syndromes listed and described, with their causal gene combination elucidated.'''

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?

'''The “influence on sex” section is going to be renamed at some point in this process, which is a good idea, I believe, because its a bit broad of a title. Maybe a subsection could be created in this section to contain a majority of the edits. Because most of the edits are concerned with disorders, a “possible disorders”, or something similar, subsection could help with clarity.'''

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

'''It is valuable to talk about what results from the particular topic going wrong. My article is about the nuclear export signals and it could probably really strengthen my article to research what sort of issues can arise from signals not being exported properly or at all.'''

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

'''All information that has been added to the article by the editor has been backed up with appropriate sources. Each new segment of information is properly annotated and cited.'''

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

'''Most of the sources used are from the NIH. These NIH citations are all from articles that were published in 2020. An online encyclopedia is used for one of the citations. This encyclopedia sources its information from articles from around the year 2001. While the information in this source is most likely accurate, it is not very current. Every link provided by the editor of this article functions correctly.'''

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

I didn’t find any grammatical or typographical errors in the edits made.

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 student editor did not add any images during their edit. All of the images on the actual article are properly sourced and appropriate for display on Wikipedia, in accordance with the site’s guidelines.'''

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.

'''https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1840875 A NCBI review article titled Testis-determining factor and Y-linked sex reversal would be a valuable source for this article. It explains the isolation of the SRY gene and how it was determined to be the determining factor that it is. It is from NCBI and it is a review article, which makes it a good fit for Wikipedia'''

Peer review performed by Matthew Dominguez