User:Emribo3/MicroDNA/Emilyrd77 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emribo3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * MicroDNA - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * MicroDNA - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence that describes the article’s topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not include a brief description of the article’s major sections as biogenesis and cancer applications are not mentioned in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added to the article is relevant as it pertains to microDNA.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up-to-date as the sources are fairly recent as they are from the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not appear to be content that is missing or content that does not belong. However, the sections could be strengthened with the use of more sources. I would recommend adding more information on the history, biogenesis, implications, and functions of microDNA using these sources: Biological Processes Discovered by High-Throughput Sequencing | Elsevier Enhanced Reader, Extrachromosomal circular DNA: a new potential role in cancer progression | Journal of Translational Medicine | Full Text (biomedcentral.com), Classification of extrachromosomal circular DNA with a focus on the role of extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in tumor heterogeneity and progression | Elsevier Enhanced Reader, Identification of Extrachromosomal Linear microDNAs Interacted with microRNAs in the Cell Nuclei, and Small extrachromosomal circular DNAs, microDNA, produce short regulatory RNAs that suppress gene expression independent of canonical promoters - PubMed (nih.gov).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no overrepresented nor underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position nor away from another.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information as peer reviewed articles were used; however, not all of the sentences include citations.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content appears to reflect what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources appear to generally cover the main topics in literature. There is potential to increase the depth of information with the sources listed above which detail more on the history of the discovery of microDNA, the potential relationship between microDNA and small regulatory RNA, and cancer applications.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are relatively current as the oldest reference is to a 2012 article.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are from a few different authors.
 * 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.)
 * The article relies on peer-reviewed articles and there are not better sources available. However, there is potential to increase the number of sources by using the articles listed above.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content could be improved to be more well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. There are some sentences that are hard to follow which I think would benefit from being rephrased such as the last sentence of the microDNA section, the sentences in the second paragraph in the Cancer Applications section, and the last sentence in the Cancer Applications section as it is unclear what ‘this’ is referring to.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There appears to be a small grammatical error in the Biogenesis section as the word can is used twice in this sentence: “It is important to note that if the loop is formed on the newly replicated strand, there is no consequential deletion in the genome while microdeletions can form from excisions can in the template strand.” I suggest having consistency between the first and second sentence which goes from “MicroDNA is” to “They are.” I also recommend changing “To repair this, this” in the Biogenesis section and potentially changing biomarker to biomarkers in the cancer applications section to improve clarity.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized and broken up into understandable sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes two images that enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well captioned. However, the captions do not have sources.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are primarily laid out in a visually appealing way. I personally think there would be a benefit in making the first image larger.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added definitely improves the overall quality of the article and makes the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added include increasing the detail provided on microDNA, biogenesis, and cancer applications and adding an informative image.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved by providing more details on the history, implications, and applications using the articles provided above. Furthermore, including citations for the sentences will help with providing evidence. I would also recommend not specifically mentioning the Kumar group as other groups have also done significant research on this subject and working on making the sentences more clear.

overall good job!