User:Dasiomo/Fluorescence cross-correlation spectroscopy/Bhnson1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Dasiomo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluorescence_cross-correlation_spectroscopy&oldid=1070369036


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluorescence_cross-correlation_spectroscopy&oldid=1070369036

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Dasiomo! Here is my Peer Review for you.

Overall


 * I really liked the edits that you made to improve the sentence structure within the article.The best example of these edits is in the fourth paragraph. This is a good start to improving the overall clarity.
 * While this editing was nice, there are other aspects of the article that would benefit deeply from some attention. These would be much more worth your time to improve the article.
 * To make a larger impact on this article I think you should focus on organizing the content under distinct headings.
 * I also think that this article is also missing some key information on applications and experimental methods.


 * Other parts of the article could be improved by the editing applied to the lead and fourth paragraph (example "utilizes" in the second paragraph). However, as stated before I think the more impactful improvements will come from organizing this article or adding more information to the article.

Lead


 * Nice change to first sentence, I agree that the first sentence should focus more on the technique than it's discovery. I think you could go further with this and only mention the discovery in one sentence, leaving the rest of the details in a later section dedicated to "discovery". This is how my wikipedia page was organized and it is effective.
 * Make sure that the use of this technique comes through. The reader should gain some understanding of why and when this technique is used. The lead is intended to be an overview of all key topics in the article and I feel this is a pretty important point to mention in one or two sentences.
 * Try to avoid jargon in the lead, this will make the article more accessible to the general audience that wants a brief description of the technique.

Clear Structure


 * This article is really missing a clear structure. In addition to the "Modeling" heading, I suggest adding headings like “Discovery”, “Theory” “Applications” “Experimental Methods”.
 * Move details of discovery out of the lead into a discovery section. Keep one sentence that states who discovered it and when.
 * The current lack of organization makes this article difficult to read. Adding headings will allow the reader to quickly find the information they want.

Additional Information

Here are some questions I think would be worth answering in this article. I understand that this is a lot of detail so you may not be able to address it all your edit.


 * What fluorescent markers are commonly used? Does the attachment of these markers affect the protein interactions.
 * When will this technique be used? When is it not appropriate to use? The brief mention of protein-protein interactions, stoich and binding constant is not sufficient. This statement needs more detail because there are other methods for testing these values. Also how does the math presented under "modeling" connect to calculating these values.
 * A description experimental methods and approach could also be added. Readers should gain an overview of how this experiment is done in lab. Collect this information under the "experimental methods" header.

References


 * Be sure not to rely too heavily on the same sources. More frequent and varied citations will improve the credibility of this article.