User:Emballou/TOX3/Asgnia Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?

Yes the sections of the article that have been revised are obvious to me, I would suggest that you put descriptive sentence at each heading where your going to add the new section. Like for instance if you want to add it in-between a section or at the beginning of the article state where your going to place your information. The new topic is relevant to the article.

What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative?

The section or the article is very well written, what impressed me was the table "boxes" the are to the far right of the article, the TOX high mobility group box family member 3, i thought it was a very good addition to the article, delivers the information a different way, and looks well put together. The information about how TOX3 gene mutation is associated with breast cancer and the quantitative data associated with the information informative.

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?

The only thing I would suggest the author to apply to the article, would be links that are associated with non-known terms such as "CREB" and "CBP" because this information is not well known, I would had links to those words so that I can click them to find out more information of what those terms mean so that I can better understand the information. Besides that its a very good article.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.

Yes, the multiple citing of sources for different areas of information so that not just one source but multiple sources could be sought in order to receive accurate information. The table indication identifiers is an amazing add to the article, I would say its applicable to my article but if I can find a way to make it relevant I would use it because it consolidates the information so well.

Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.

Inconsistency with the words, if TOX are always capitalized I would stay consistent and capitalize those terms all the way through the article.

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.

There are not images on the page, so the student won't be responsible for anything associated with images, as of now, unless the student decides to add images, in the future.

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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006398/, This article contains information about the CITED 1 gene, and how this transcription co-regulator is involved in disease linkage, it may help add information about other disease linkage factors in your article with TOX3.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?