User:Jacksonal1/Sex-limited genes/Cruzkrafsig Peer Review

Peer review
Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic? '''Yes. The original material is posted at the beginning with the modified information immediately following it. The original content has been expounded upon with more detail provided.'''

What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative. '''The article discusses sex limiting genes and their relation to sexual dimorphism between males and females of the same species. As a scientific presentation of information unfamiliar to most people, it is necessary to elaborate further on terminology specific to the subject. This could have been done better in the original version and perhaps more so in the edited newer version. In all, it is informative and free of superfluous explanations and unnecessary verbosity.'''

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? '''As mentioned previously, many scientific articles would benefit from simplifying explanations, and defining unfamiliar terminology in order to reach/inform a larger audience. This would improve the overall delivery by providing information clearly and concisely in order to leave the reader informed rather than overwhelmed with an even greater number of questions than before. This would be the most effective way to reach a larger audience. Also, the conclusion section of the article is a bit underwhelming. The information presented prior is far too detailed for a conclusion that doesn't further engage the reader, or provide additional insight. The conclusion could have included additional references for further clarification, or for interested readers to find additional resources to answer potential questions related to the previously presented information.'''

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. '''Interestingly, there are slight parallels between this article and my own. Sexual dimorphism is affected by the endocrine disrupting rainbow herbacides listed in my own articles leading to anomalies in sexual differentiation during development, and an increased prevalence of defects resulting from altered endocrine function.'''

Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information? '''Yes. The sources are current, with the oldest of the three being from 2015. The remaining are from 2018/2019, and the sources are well known to scientific establishments.'''

Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work? As mentioned above, the sources are current, from reliable avenues, and the links match with the information cited.

Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found. '''I did not locate any erroneous typographical/grammatical errors. The explanations are concise, but could benefit from even more detail, and elaborating on unfamiliar terminology.'''

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 revision did not include the addition of new images by the student author. In referring to the original, a video is indeed present in the original under the Epigenetics section detailing 3-D microscopy of the inactive X-chromosome sex limiting gene. It was previously approved for posting and remains functioning.'''

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. I think that any articles concerning the proposed "fitness costs on sexually reproducing species", posited in the conclusion, would be beneficial to the reader, as well as further detailing its connection with Charles Darwin (also mentioned in the conclusion).