User:Jasmin Johnson/HaeIII/Ouxiang Peer Review

1. Is it obvious to you which seciton of the article have been revised? is the new content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the revised section was found and new content relevant to the topic was found.

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 does well in the formats. The structure is very clean, and it includes important general information about the restriction enzyme. Also, the information is very neutral and balanced. The Thing that impressed me the most, is that your edited version has already been updated on the wikipedia page.

3. What overall adjustments do you suggest the author applies to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? what's the most important things the author could do to improve the article?

The only thing I would suggest is that maybe to take look at other sources about the HaeIII restriciton enzyme. I think there is only one citation used for this edit. I think with more source author can make this edit more comprehensive. Other than that, everything is good.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could apply to your article?

Yes, since my article has just recently been updated by someone else and it has been improved comprehensivly. I had a hard time trying to edit and after reading this article I have few more ideas of adding new subsection to my article.

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

Yes, all new content is backed up by Sigma Aldrich. Which I assume is a reliable website because it is commonly used by our chemistry department.

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

The link works, but no visible date was detected on the website. However, based on the articles about the restriction enzymes on the website all of the articles are before 2015.

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

Overall, there are no typo and grammatical errors, which is awesome. Yet, maybe consider adding hyphen between single stranded and leave a space between overdigestion.

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. Summarized your findings.

No image was found both in the wikipedia page nor the sandbox. However, I do recoommend the author to add an image of the HaeIII to help readers to visualize the materials being presented.

9. Identify at least on additional reference that you think my contribute to the article. Explain why you think this article would benefit form the new information. Be sure to provide the reference in your write-up.

Additional references:

https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/15/4/946.full.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/037811198890248X

Overall, the revised article is well. It has clean structures, neutral content, and general information. If I have to suggest are additional references and images to better the article. Both articles I picked above are interesting, it goes into a bit detail on what and how HaeIII plays a role in the molecular biology laboratory. It also gives an overview of how mechanistically HaeIII reacts at the molecular level.