User:Ddelrio08/Origin of transfer/BiomolecularFeminist Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ddelrio08, Tahmina018, Zezhong


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ddelrio08/Origin_of_transfer?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Origin of transfer

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Origin of Transfer Peer Review 1
All new content appears to be backed up by reliable sources of information. It appears a lot of the sources are nearing 30 years old, and while that information may be relevant to the topic, I am wondering if more recent sources can be added to augment the perspectives, especially as the science of topics like this can evolve so quickly. For example, currently most sources are from the 80s, 90s, or early 2000s, and I imagine a lot of recent research has also taken place that can offer different perspectives that can make this article more comprehensive in scope.

However, on the positive side, it seems most (if not all) of your sources are from journals and are published works, not news coverage/random websites.

One area that seems off is the numbering of the references section. It seems that you may have included sources from the original article as well as having added on your own. I would make sure the numbering scheme selected actually aligns with the sources you're trying to quote. As it stands, the number 1 could be standing for one of two articles according to the sources, so I would rectify this as not to misrepresent someone's work and so readers can confidently access the sources from which you got your information.

Also, looking at your sources, only some have the "doi" links. Can you add more of the complete citations that link to the actual article itself so people can access it for their own reference? Again, I am not sure if those are the sources that you added yourself or ones that were original to the article, as the numbering scheme is not quite correct.

As written, the article is rather concise. It is written in a way that follows a logical flow, and while it is technically complex with the methods, it does break down the parts of the oriT individually in a way that you can follow (ex: how you mention different proteins, enzymes, etc involved in the Function section).

I understand we are in the early staging of drafting and editing, but a large scope approach could be taken to really supplement several key areas that I think you can develop: history/discovery, early experiments, common methods, applications/uses. These are just some ideas of sections that you could add to supplement the "Function" and "Bacterial Conjugation" sections currently drafted. With these two existing sections, I imagine there is more that you could add as well. The current function section is sufficient, but I imagine there may be some more information from even the sources you have already cited. Using those already cited sources you can likely find even more information to add to these sections without having to do more work to find new sources for that information.

I checked many of your links, and they appear to work and link to the other articles that are supposed, so that is good!

Spelling and grammar look good. I am wondering about the syntax of the sentence starting with "A relaxase..." I would have to reference a style guide, but I am wondering if the phrase in parentheses can be changed to be a dependent clause with surrounded by commas instead? It seemed like Wikipedia articles would prefer syntax that doesn't use parentheses, just based off articles I've read (but don't quote me -- just thought it might be something to look into).

In this version, there are no images included in the article. It might be good to some images or diagrams, as it is a topic that is not immediately intuitive, even to people (like students) who may have some concept but are not entirely familiar. These images would be have to be available for public use, though, of course! Additionally, with these images, captions would be especially important for the same regions.

Currently, the content is just about as organized as it can get, yet currently the article is a bit limited. I would expand upon these as I noted above.

I would edit your lead as written. In the current version of the article, there is already a developed lead that you would be replacing if you published your sandbox draft as written. Can you find a way to incorporate the more detailed approach of the current version and mesh it with the lead you've developed? Alternatively, can you find more information that supplements the current version's lead if you have to scrap your lead in your sandbox?

As written, the content is neutral and balanced. However, as you are likely going to add a lot more to this draft, keep in mind to maintain this tone throughout your work. Just keep up what you already have going! This isn't a requirement, but it may be especially interesting to find work or applications of the oriT written by an underrepresented population.

BiomolecularFeminist