User:ErinNHolman/ChIP-sequencing/Phammh Peer Review

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

'''The revised articles are organized well to where I can see the original and edited. However, it would be easier if the articles were broken up by paragraphs with headings to make it easier to see where it is edited. The new content is in depth and relevant to the topic.'''

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

'''The edited article describes the ChIP method in greater detail. Describing and putting the method in chronological order was very informative, since the original article was not clear on that. Writing out the name of some acronyms was helpful in the edited article, as the original article did not do that. Overall, nice job!'''

3.	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?

Under the "Current research" subsection, it would be helpful to the reader to bold or emphasize in some way each of the research topics because it can be a bit tiresome or intimidating to see a big paragraph.

'''I've also noticed that there seems to be different methods of ChIP (ChIP-seq, ChIP-chip, and ChIP-PCR). It would be helpful to state that there are different methods of ChIP in the beginning paragraph of the original article.'''

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

'''The research on genome-wide ChIP-seq could be used for my article on interrupted genes. It could relate to the article by demonstrating how ChIP can be used on non-coding RNA regions.'''

5.	Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?

All new content has reliable sources and correct citations.

6.	Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?

'''All sources are fairly current. Source 9 in the original article does not have a link and is from 2013.'''

7.	Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.

"In order to carry out the ChIP, the first step is cross-linking using formaldehyde and large batches of the DNA in order to obtain a good amount of ChIP "

'''"The cross-links are made between the protein and DNA, RNA and even other proteins." A bit confused on why you stated protein twice. Maybe reword the ending?'''

8.	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.

The image is clear and understandable in the original article.

9.	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.

'''This source would benefit the article because it compares different sequencing platforms and an overall explanation of the tools and method used in ChIP-seq method. The comparison of the original ChIP with other methods would give a broader view of how ChIP-seq has evolved and provide new and known information for the reader.'''