User:Emilyrd77/DNA shuffling/Owenwilborn Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emily - @Emilyrd77


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Emilyrd77/DNA shuffling
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emilyrd77/DNA_shuffling?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * DNA shuffling

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - however meaning of "rapidly propagate mutations" could be clarified or broken down for a non-scientific reader.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes - it briefly covers history, procedures, and applications.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No - nice job.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

The lead section is fairly solid. A few points you can clarify are, what does "annealing based on sequence homology" mean? Focus on the fact you are not making small or point mutations but adding different gene fragments together and making big chances to the gene, maybe reference the figure on the right about how shuffling makes many changes at random locations, but each change is of considerable size. You can emphases the "unique attributes or combinations of desirable characteristics" are a resulting of these large changes compared to small point mutations which wouldn't have this ability.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes - all the content is on topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes- most citations appear to be from late 1990's and early 2000's, however this was when DNA shuffling was becoming mainstream so it is okay, article has a few papers from late 2000's as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some section to consider improving on. The sub-section on restriction enzymes can be expanded upon. Explain how 2 parent genes and three RE sites gives 1new genes 4. (I know it is 2^3-2=14 but others may not understand). The sub-section nonhomologous random recombination you can add what is the function of DNase I, why using random cutting now if needed, why making strands blunt is done (to prevent non-compatible sticky ends), and why use a hairpin (to stop over formation of new gene length). How is nonhomologous random recombination different from molecular breeding? Maybe clarify the differences of each procedure and how they give slightly different types of products and pros/cons of each. I know you can only write facts and no opinions but clarify when each type of procedure is used. A few missing citations in applications but I trust you will fix those, the applications section as a whole is pretty good.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No - it is a scientific article.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes- neutral about the procedures and applications are just listing of direct examples of the tool.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some citations are missing in application section.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes- checked some sources and all claims where backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, extensive list of sources
 * Are the sources current? Overall current for when the topic was getting lots of research attention.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Does not apply here.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes, almost all are peer review
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, links work. But some sources behind paywalls because facts came from peer review articles.


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, besides area were citations are missing as noted earlier.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes- However please reference the figure in the text and explain it in the text not just caption.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, if anything include some info in the caption section in the lead section as well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, before article was lacking and only had ~10 sentences
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Strengths are the application section, revamped lead section, history section, and more depth and structure to procedure section.
 * How can the content added be improved? The procedure section can go into more depth and explain the procedures for a non-scientific reader. I only understood the procedures because I studied the topic for the midterm. Also try to change the lead section to clarify how DNA shuffling is different from other mutation creating techniques. See content and lead section above for specific changes to make.

-Owen