User:Faithmartin/Mutagenesis (molecular biology technique)/Mugfordjl Peer Review

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

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

'''Yes, they have revised the combinatorial mutagenesis and the insertional mutagenesis sections. It is relevant, as it adds to the sections already there.'''

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

'''I think you did well on elaborating on the information that was already available. I think in the first section you edited, you did a good job with elaborating on what the combinatorial mutagenesis does. You added why it is useful and what it assesses to help with gaining a better understanding. In the second section you edited, I thought you cleaned it up really nicely. The exact text version was hard to understand and your edits and additions drastically improved it.'''

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?

'''In the first edited section, I saw some adjustments with citations that needed to be improved. First if you have two sentences in a row that use the same reference, you only need to reference the second sentence. I also was unsure why there were no references for the last four sentences. Was this because the original author didn’t provide a reference? If the work cannot be referenced, then it should most likely be removed in order to avoid plagiarism. I think some information on how the segment is mutant is actually engineered and how it is inserted into the DNA. This would just give a better understanding of the procedure and some of the key steps involved.'''

'''In the second edited section, I thought this was nicely done and the wording was easy to follow. In order to improve this section, I think you could add some more detail on the actual process. What about retroviruses and transposons makes them good tools for the insertion of base pairs? I also think it would be beneficial to add how they do it. I noticed a small gramatical error where you stated “mutagenesis for as an.”'''

Overall, I think the most important thing to improve would be to discuss the processes behind the two types of mutagenesis into greater detail.

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

I noticed how your headers appear larger and underlined, which I need to add to my article.

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

'''Yes, except for the end of the first edited section I did not see any citations. I also think you should edit the reference list by making the 1-3 references into APA format if possible.'''

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

'''They’re between 2005-2019. All of the links you added worked, except 5 wasn’t shown as a clickable link. Also the article 1, which wasn’t added by you, doesn’t work.'''

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

I mentioned the one I caught above, in the second edited section that states “mutagenesis for as an.

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.

There were no images on the page.

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.

'''Bushman, F. D. (n.d.). Retroviral Insertional Mutagenesis in Humans: Evidence for Four Genetic Mechanisms Promoting Expansion of Cell Clones. MOLECULAR THERAPY, 28(2), 352–356. https://doi-org.nuncio.cofc.edu/10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.12.009 '''

'''This is a good article giving more information on how retroviruses can be used as a tool of insertional mutagenesis. It explains four different mechanisms, allowing you to add a better understanding of the process to your article. The article also does an overall good job at summarizing insertional mutagenesis which may be helpful in adding any additional information.'''

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?