User:GoldenIsland2124/Somatic cell/Js3377 Peer Review

General info
GoldenIsland2124
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:GoldenIsland2124/Somatic cell
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Somatic cell

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: not modified, no peer review needed

Content:

- the addition of sources was supportive to the existing information provided

- I do like the added time frames for the clones. While not strictly necessary, it helps me to understand how long successful nuclear transfer has been occurring and an implied sense of how successful the process has been at creating a healthy clone

- nitpicky: "as a response to..." feels like it'd flow better as "in response to..."

Tone and Balance

- seems professional and clear to me. Good balance of detail and clarity.

Sources and References

- I like the sources that you've added - they clearly relate to the topic and they are from reputable journals

- brief skimming of the abstracts shows that your added information matches the general ideas shared in these articles, however I'm not quite sure where the livestock piece of information fits in with the article. I just did a Ctl>F on the article and didn't find anything about livestock. It talks about animals generally, mentioning several focuses from mammals to amphibians. Perhaps modify to reflect the article's findings and broaden away from the specificity of livestock. Or, you can find another article that focuses on the application to livestock - up to you!

- both journals are peer reviewed, so you're doing good there :)

- the sources seem pretty current

- in the evolution section of the orignal article, I noticed that it has a [citation needed] that could be edited by you if you're looking fo more to do

Organization:

- do you think that the organization of the original article is the best when it comes to flow? Would the last section on genetic modifications be better above cloning? Also, I'm a bit confused by the subtitle evolution - could that be changed for increased clarity?

Images and Media - none added as of yet, no peer review needed

- maybe a diagram of how they remove the nucleus and add a new one in would be helpful visually

Overall Impressions:

- Overall it's a good step in the right direction! Your sources are good for supporting the existing article, with the caveat mentioned above. Good luck with your continuation!