User:Cantybm/Dideoxynucleotide/HaleeG Peer Review

1.     Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic? '''Yes, the new information that was added is labeled and the new subsections added are also labeled in the article. Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic of the article.'''

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 think the article overall is very descriptive of the subject that the writer is trying to explain. I think the addition of more details were informative like how taq polymerase was added in a paragraph. Also, in the first subsection you started talking about the nucleophilic attack of the OH group and you continued to explain that and go into more detail.'''

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? '''I think if more relevant information can be found about the second subsection, maybe more text could be added since that subsection is a little shorter than the first one. I think the amount of detail is good in the article, but it could be helpful to look at some of the sentences to see if the information can be conveyed in a more concise or straightforward way without changing the overall meaning of the subsections. Also, I think if some of the sentences were structured differently the information would be a little clearer and it would be easier to read through the entire article.'''

4.     Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. I think more information could be added to my article, and I could also go into a bit more detail when I'm trying to describe or explain something in my article.

5.     Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information? '''The new content references two different sources that are both cited in the article. The sources do seem to be reliable. The information from the first source comes from our book, and the other source is a research article.'''

6.     Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work? '''The research article is from 1999 and the link to the research article does work. The book is more recent and I think this edition is from 2014.'''

7.     Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found. Change the spelling for appropriate and also add a period for this sentence '''(This discover lead to its appropreiate name "Chain-terminating nucleotides"). Also, I think led should be used instead of lead. I think the quotations here should be before the period ("most widely used and the method used by most automated DNA sequencers."). Add an n to function in this sentence (...disabling the DNA polymerases ability to follow through with its fuction). The word they before both isn't needed (They are also known as 2',3' dideoxynucleotides because they both the 2' and 3' positions on the ribose lack hydroxl groups, and abbreviated as ddNTPs (ddGTP, ddATP, ddTTP and ddCTP).) You could add the word are before abbreviated in the last sentence.'''

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 original article has an image of the molecular structure of ddATP. I think the image works for the article. It is from Wikimedia Commons and I think it should be okay to use in the article.'''

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. '''This article has more information about taq polymerase and PCR. The article is also more recent and it is from 2016.''' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26820310/?from_term=taq+polymerase&from_filter=years.2015-2020&from_page=5&from_pos=5