User:Emribo3/MicroDNA/Owenwilborn Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emily - @Emribo3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * MicroDNA


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

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? The first sentence is very short and does not explain what microDNA is. Try and make the first sentence more informative giving an overview of the rest of the lead section to come.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, covers the basics of biogenesis section and introduces its role in cancer.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Can you please explain what this means "DNA damage response of the DNA:RNA hybrid"? What causes the DNA:RNA hybrid to be formed, does the hybrid appear when the DNA suffers lots of mutations?

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes - the content is on topic and describes microDNA well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most articles from 2010's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing present is offer topic, however primary studies should not be included, see below.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Major issues with citations and sources. Many full paragraphs and large portions of others have no citation present. If information came from the source already cited you must cite again for every sentence. Unless the information is common knowledge I would have a citation behind every sentence. Second major issue is listing Kumar group by name and explaining their studies. Results from studies and hypothesis//conclusions from them are not well established facts suitable for Wikipedia. Lastly, "Production of extrachromosomal microDNAs is linked to mismatch repair pathways and transcriptional activity" is a primary article, you should only use secondary review sources. I think a few other sources you have are also primary articles that need to be fact check. Try to find more review articles and avoiding put any persons opinion in here, list only facts verifiable by a review article or multiple studies.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? It's okay - However Kumar group opinions are present.
 * 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? No - add citations after all sentences.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes - I checked a few facts and they were back up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Could use a few more secondary reviews to have more breadth.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, mostly in 2010's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Does not apply.
 * 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.) Used some primary articles, although these are peer review try and find secondary articles such as review articles on the subject.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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? The first image is good, the second image is very hard to see maybe zoom in or use a different one.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No, File:MicroDNA Biogenesis.jpeg has been flagged in our talk page as having no source.
 * 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? The article to start was a stub so it has definitely has been improved. However, the lack of citations and inclusion of specific studies makes it likely to be removed be another editor.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the articles are the depth. It covers a fairly unknown topic in decent detail and sentences are mostly well written and easy to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? The article can be improved by finding more secondary sources to back claims, it can also be improved by removing Kumar group opinions/studies from the article unless this can be backed by another person/source. Right now it reads as more of a peer review article and not a Wikipedia article.