User:Cafe1919/Phage typing/Tnguyen01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cafe1919


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cafe1919/Phage typing


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Phage typing

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes, soem minor edits have been made, including the identifier "phagotype." However I would change the colon in "The phage drops are allowed to dry and are incubated: The susceptible phage regions will show a circular clearing where the bacteria have been lysed, and this is used in differentiation," back to either a period or demi-colon for better flow.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes, specificity of phages and lysogenicity of bacteria sections were added, which are essential and important when understanding phage typing. Good notations were added in Sandbox history, so it's easy to keep track what was edited.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, most of the articles (3/4) added are recent (2000s and higher)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some content that could potentially be added is the mention of the lytic cycle in contrast to the lysogenic cycle to help clarify. (also, in AP Bio, I remember that some cells undergo the lysogenetic cycle and when triggered by some external stimuli, enter the lytic cycle. Does this not occur here and why is it protected from it?) In addition, a wiki-link to lysogenicity could be useful.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, content was highly factual.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, every claim seems to be properly cited.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? - Sources reflect the claims made, and do reflect the available literature. There could be a few more sources to back up the same claim, because there is likely more literature out there talking about the same topic, but might not be that necessary.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, most are from 2000s and higher.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes, sources are written by authors across multiple disciplines.
 * 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.) - If available, a very stable secondary source like a textbook could enhance citations.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -The material is well-written and understandable. For the most part, someone unfamiliar with the topic would likely be able to understand the material presented.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Besides the colon in the lead section, the sentence in the second paragraph of the body says "Lysogenized bacteria adsorb species-specific phages but are protected against the lytic action of phages which are serologically identical or related to its prophage." The sentence is a but unwieldy - maybe change "which" to "that"?


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, but "specificity of phages" should be made a subheading. In addition, maybe another subheading "lysogenicity of bacteria" could be added, since the second paragraph doesn't entirely fit under the subheading "specificity of phages."

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - The content additions are good; the addition of the different characteristics of phages and bacteria that would affect phage typing is relevant, although I would mention the relationship between lysogenicity of bacteria and phage typing to show why it is important to know. Another suggestion could be to wiki link more words that may be unfamiliar to those more unfamiliar with biology/engineering terminology (for example "deoxyribonucleic acid" or "prophage").
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The content added was very clear and methodical.

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? -There were 4 resources added, making it 8 resources total. There is a good mix of primary and secondary sources.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? - Yes, phage typing exploits the useful characteristics of phages and bacteria. This usage of Molecular Biotechnology has been seen in previous chapters of our class.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? - Perhaps a brief historical background could be provided for better context (scientists/mathematicians who were instrumental in discovering/creating phage typing, some notable experiments that have used phage typing, etc.)
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? Besides a slight historical context for background, perhaps pictures could be useful (maybe the lysogenic/lytic cycle or antigens on the surface of the bacteria or something if applicable). Also, it was mentioned in the lead that phage typing is used to trace the source of outbreaks - how does it do that (maybe add a section for importance?)