User:H.Bergmann01/CD28 family receptor/Thomasmk1 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 author of the draft separated the original text from edited text by placing them into two different sections with clear headings. The separation of texts made the revisions easy to find. The author’s article discusses the CD28 family receptor’s function and role it plays in other cellular mechanism such as phosphorylation and autoimmunity. The new content expands on these topics and offers a greater understanding of the importance of CD28 family receptors.'''

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

'''In the original article the author vaguely mentions that CD28 receptors can be found on the surface of T cells but does not go into detail about the role CD28 receptors have on T cells. The revised article however, states the purpose of CD28 receptors on immune cells which is to develop and proliferate T cells. The author of the revised article also includes citations within the text which adds credibility to the information presented within the article. The original article does not include citations. One particular piece of information I found especially informative was the last sentence of test which stated that the percentage of CD28 receptors decreases with age. This piece of information was missing in the original text and provides another interesting concept to the molecular biology of aging.'''

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?

'''While reading the article the second sentence of the paragraph has a few minor grammar mistakes. I would suggest rewording the sentence to improve the flow of the paragraph. Additionally, there are a few sections in the paragraph where the author refers to CD28 receptors as “it.” By referring to the CD28 receptors as “it,” the subject of the sentence in not clear. The most important thing the author could do to improve the article would be re-reading the text and making sure sentences flow and can be read by a variety of audiences.'''

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

'''I did not notice anything that explicitly related to my article. However, my article discusses the fluorescent microscopic stain Acridine Orange, which could be used to stain the immune cells that contain the CD28 receptors.'''

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

'''Yes, the new content is backed up by reliable sources, which are cited at the bottom of the article. The original content did not contain sources to back up the information.'''

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

'''Yes, all of the sources used for the article are current. The year the sources were published range from 2015-2018. All three DOI numbers for each of the three sources work.'''

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

The grammatical errors I found included missing commas, punctuation issues, and an incorrect verb form within the sentence that discusses “ligation of these receptors…”

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.

Both the original and revised article do not contain any images.

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.

'''An additional reference that I think may contribute to the article discusses the signaling pathways that are activated by CD28 receptors for cell-to-cell contact. The article would benefit from the information provided in the article cited below, because cell-to-cell contact is a difficult task and one of the ways the authors were able to analyze the signaling pathways was phosphorylation . The revised text uses phosphorylation as an example of an intracellular biochemical reaction, this new information would provide more context to the example and add to the role CD28 receptors occupy in cells.'''