User:Jacksonad7/Adaptive response/Mullneree 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?

-It is clear which sections have been revised (I like how you added in where you edited and what was unedited; including dates). All added information is relevant. I liked the mechanism and kinetics section that explained everything.

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

- This article explains the detail of adaptive response. It expands off of the existing information and makes everything make more sense to the reader. Even though the mechanism of adaptive response is not well known, the article adds in details to elaborate what could be the mechanism and provides experimental results to prove it. Great!

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?

-I think the last paragraph could go into more detail. It seems to end abruptly. I’m not sure if there is more to the article after this and that it is why It ends this way. If I could suggest one thing, it would be to edit this final paragraph.

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

-The way that you introduced the edits and what was existing versus what you added, I didn’t do this as well and need to adjust for final edits. The level of detail used in this article is higher than mine which could be better in my own article.

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

-I noticed a lack of citations within the new information added to the article. There is good reference to the figures which was good. However, only two references were used and they were not cited within the body of the text. This is more than common knowledge. Might be good to add in some more citations to avoid claims of plagiarism. (Especially in the mechanism and kinetics section)

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

-The first source does not have a date(?). The second is from 2007 which is not within the >2015 that is asked but isn’t that old in my opinion. Both links worked when I checked them.

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

-Noticed that when referencing figures, there is a lack of comma after which is needed (EX: In figure 2, ____info). Don’t see any typos as far as words. Only see missing commas (try using paper rater to help find help for the grammar.)

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 are no images. Once I went back to the original article, there are no figures either. Which figures is the article referring to within the body of the text? If they are a part of the references then add them into the text for easier reference for the readers.

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.

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8856977

This has some more information about the SOS gene that can help you either add more information to the SOS gene section that is pre-existing or help you decide to delete it as you mentioned.