User:Echall.su/Peripheral tolerance/Judgementkazzy822 Peer Review

General info
Echall.su
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Echall.su/Peripheral tolerance - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Peripheral tolerance - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Peripheral tolerance - Wikipedia
 * Peripheral tolerance - Wikipedia

Lead
"In immunology, peripheral tolerance is the second branch of immunological tolerance, after central tolerance. It takes place in the immune periphery (after T and B cells egress from primary lymphoid organs). Its main purpose is to ensure that self-reactive T and B cells which escaped central tolerance do not cause autoimmune disease. Self reactive cells are subject to clonal deletion or clonal diversion. Both processes of peripheral tolerance control the presence and production of self reactive immune cells. Peripheral tolerance prevents immune response to harmless food antigens and allergens, too.

Dependence of a particular antigen on either central or peripheral tolerance is determined by its abundance in the organism. B cell peripheral tolerance is much less studied. B Cells have a lower probability that they will express cell surface markers to pose the threat of causing an autoimmune attack. Peripheral tolerance of B cells is largely mediated by B cell dependence on T cell help."

The changes to the first paragraph of this lead section are an improvement compared to the original, however, some things are a bit concerning and confusing to me. In both the original document and your draft "peripheral tolerance" is bolded, however, I didn't seem to notice an edit history including your username for that. If that's from the original version then there are only 3 major edits, which exacerbates a need for further edits. That aside, the addition is good, though it may be slightly overcomplicated for inclusion in the lead section. Ultimately, I will leave it up to your discretion whether or not to keep your edit, but if you do, then you should spend time to add some edits to the corresponding section that you are referencing in the lead section additions. Furthermore, if there isn't any coverage of this in the following sections, then you need to add a short section of your own creation to further elaborate on your additions to the lead section. Additionally, self reactive is written as self-reactive so I would edit that for consistency.

Regarding the sentences and a quarter, you added to the third paragraph of the lead section, I'm unsure of the purpose of including a statement on autoimmune attack in this section of the lead. It is covered previously to an extent in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs, but it doesn't really fit in with the final section on B cell abundance. If anything, if you want to keep the sentence "B Cells have a lower probability that they will express cell surface markers to pose the threat of causing an autoimmune attack." you should incorporate it into the third section so that the lead keeps its coherent flow and structure. The content is transformed enough from the original that it won't be pinged for plagiarism, and the reference is solid, it's simply the position of the statement that is problematic.

Overall, I think the changes to the lead are decent. The additions are concise with solid references, and they help to expand on following sections of information. However, from here on I am largely concerned with the work demonstrated here.

Content
While the content of the additions in the lead section is welcome, there is a concerning lack of edits in anywhere outside of the lead section. In fact, as far as I could tell, you only edited the lead section. I would recommend, that in order to get the best outcome for this project, you expand on the sections you reference within the lead section. You mention b-cell autoimmune concerns due to cell surface markers, I would like to see you edit this article to include such a section, as the b cells are only mentioned within the lead and nowhere else. This lack of expanding information on the subject matter you choose to add makes me question the validity of your additions to the lead section. Either you need to add a section to this article and expand on this or remove your lead section edits about b-cell autoimmune attack.

Regarding the first edits to the first paragraph, those are more coherent with the self-reactive cells talked about in the LNSC, regulatory T cell, and intrinsic methods sections. However, I again, would like to see you use what you've read to expand upon what already exists in those sections and contribute to improving the article. Maybe that's including an image or helping to explain a cascade of cellular paths that are a part of routing self-reactive t cells would suffice.

Regardless, I find your draft lacking in content overall. I think that you need to greatly expand upon the edits you've made in order to justify the scant few sentences you've placed in the lead section in hopes of a passing grade on this project.

Tone
Regardless of the edits recommended above, you did a commendable job in maintaining a neutral tone throughout your draft edits. I don't think you're being too persuasive towards a particular cause or ideology. In this regard your current few edits are respectable tone-wise.

Sources and references
Only references 2 and 5 were added by the user. Both articles are open source and available through the NIH NCBI website, which means they are accessible, and both are current enough to be valuable as Wikipedia references. I have no major issues or gripes with the articles chosen, however, given the previous recommendations, if you make additional edits then you may need to gather more articles. That said, given your success rate so far, I am confident you'll choose more articles that perfectly align with what Wikipedia is searching for.

Organization
Your organization is less than ideal. Because there is so little to examine in the form of edits, and the fact that all your edits are relegated to the lead section of this article, I'm of the opinion that any more additions to the article would require a thorough examination as to their organizational quality. Make sure any future edits still flow smoothly with the original writing, and that your edits remain concise and coherent. You need to make sure what you're adding to this article is actually necessary and additive. If you are having trouble figuring out if what you want to add here, it's always a decent idea to reach out to the page's supervisor.

Images
No Images have been added yet, therefore, I would recommend adding an image to any of the sections aside from the lead. Immunoprevileged cells, quiescence, peripheral deletion and LNSC all seem like sections that would improve with the addition of an image to enhance the previously covered material.

Finishing thoughts
Overall, I think you have a long way to go with your edits. I suspect that Dr. Nyland will not be satisfied with you only making 3 sentences worth of additions to the lead section. In that regard, I will reiterate briefly what I have recommended above. You need to expand upon what you've added to the lead section, and appropriately include either references and/or images to flesh these new sections out. Given how the organization was lacking, I would highly recommend getting a secondhand opinion on your edits after you've added them for other sections aside form the lead. I think if you make these edits you will succeed in this project, as you have a great sense for picking review articles, not plagiarizing source material, and being tone neutral in your writing.