User:KBednarik/Human genome /Rmmariusz Peer Review

"Human Genome" contribution by KBednarik reviewed respectfully by Rmmariusz on March 27, 2020.

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

topic?

The revised content is clearly visible and enhances the collective purpose of the article by emphasizing the more prominent effects of the human genome and how its contents interact with the environment and within the genome.

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

information that you found especially informative.

'''The edited and added contribution clearly and consistently emphasizes very important details and information regarding how the human genome works. The overall purpose of the article is strongly supported by an introduction of how the human genome can exhibit faulty features and processes as well as a resovoir of commonly present condition to reference from along with their respective ratios.'''

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?

Perhaps do not become redundant with the provided/edited information (e.g. "As noted above...") There is no need to reiterated given information.

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

Let them know.

'''I strongly believe that the implementing of a chart greatly organizes the examples of your edited contribution/topic. Referencing other Wiki pages to provide further information is also really helpful.'''

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

'''All of the provided content is thoroughly supported by the specified articles that were cited. A good generalization of the information from the articles proves useful throughout the compiled charts and provided abbreviations.'''

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

'''All articles are contemporary, deriving from 2016 and 2017. All links work although an account is needed to access to files it seems but that is not due to your efforts. The sites are being really difficult. Good references!'''

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

Exclude comma at "...in the CFTR gene, and is the most..."

Exclude comma at "...of gene function, and are fortunately..."

'''Consider putting "...currently there are approximately 2,200..." in parenthesis or make it into a new sentence.'''

'''Remove/revise "As noted above..." as a reiteration is not necessary.'''

'''Consider separating "...Kallman syndrome and Pfeiffer syndrome.." by a comma as it make the rest of the sentence inconsistent.'''

'''Be more clear with what you mean by "...to narrow the genome down..." perhaps.'''

Overall great grammar with excellent choice of vocabulary!

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.

All images are clearly described and are comprehensible by the reader in addition to their extreme support to the article's main goal to both generalize and provide sufficient information regarding the human genome and its supplementary topics.

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

This article might prove useful in that it touches upon the human genome and cardiovascular disease and a few intricate details such as cholesterol concentration and sodium conservation within the blood in addition to evolutions effect on the matter.

'''"Human Genome Evolution and Development of Cardiovascular Risk Factors Through Natural Selection" by R. Poledne and J. Zicha. Can be found of the CofC library page.'''

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?