User:Chamnessra/Molecular cytogenetics/Sharondaa C Peer Review

Peer review

 * 1) Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?  After reviewing the article, I believe that I was able to recognize the sections of the article that have been revised by the author(s).  I believe that the new information that the author(s) provided for the article is relevant to the main topic of the article.


 * 1) 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 layout of the article is really nice. All of the informations is organized by sections so it is easy for the reader to know what the following paragraphs entail. I really like how they have a 'contents' box which can allow the reader to have a overview of the sections that follow the introductory paragraph. The 'contents box also allows for the reader to see the subsections within each section, which is really helpful with understanding why all of the information is organized the way it is. The Common Techniques and Applications sections were very informative. I really like how pictures were included in in these sections,  which helped with giving the information a visual representation about what was being presented in the paragraphs.
 * 2) 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?  Overall, I think the article is written and formatted very well. I think it would be nice for the author(s) to include visual representation for the other two common techniques. This way the readers will be able to the key difference and be able to differentiate between the three most common techniques. I think the most important thing the author(s) could do to improve the article is to go a little more in depth about the current projects and maybe elaborate a little bit about whole genome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, ChIP-sequencing, and Illumina Infinum MethylationEPIC BeadCHIP, just to give the reader more information.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.  No, I did not notice anything about the article I reviewed that could be applicable to my own article.


 * 1) Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?  Yes, all of the new content is backed up by a reliable source of information.


 * 1) Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?  Yes, the sources they used in their article are fairly current. All of the links as well as the doi work for verifying the sources. All of the information provided form the links look accurate as well.
 * 2) Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.  Overall, after reviewing the article I see little to no typographical/ grammatical errors presented. If the author did want to just review the article again for the final revision Grammarly would be a good source to use to check for those types of errors.
 * 3) 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.  After reviewing the images I found that the images were cited correctly and gave credit to the original authors if it had one. Each image was described in detail and from what I can see everything was annotated and described accurately.
 * 4) 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.dermnetnz.org/topics/cytogenetic-testing/  I think this would be a good source because it discusses the common techniques. This source also has a nice image that could be used to give a visual representation of Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH).

Smith, Eva, and Amanda Oakley. “Cytogenetic Testing.” Cytogenetic Testing | DermNet NZ, 2019, www.dermnetnz.org/topics/cytogenetic-testing/.