User:KBednarik/Human genome /Sgdixon Peer Review

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?

Steven Dixon - Peer Review Questions and Answers

 * 1) Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?
 * 2) Yes the new content developed for the Human Genome Wikipedia article is outlined definitively. This new information is indicated through a subheading "Draft of New Text" by the student author. The contributing student author added new information strictly to the Human Genetic Disorders subsection of the article.
 * 3) What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative.
 * 4) I believe that the newly incorporated information is excellent in regard to presenting additional information to an already thorough article. I find it particularly impressive that a student author was able to include such substantial information, particularly regarding the various syndromes and disorders linked to genetic abnormalities. The information pertaining to the sequencing techniques is very informative, specifically with which disorders they are able to detect and certain attributes/characteristics of each.
 * 5) 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?
 * 6) Overall, I believe the contributions of this student author would benefit from including a more thorough explanation of each sequencing technique. Their approach is excellent, but I believe it lacks a certain amount of detail to fully grasp the entire picture of the technique. The author does a great job at describing the disorders that may be detected with each. Maybe also include links imbedded into the text that may direct an reader to the Wikipedia article of such techniques (that is, if they have their own article).
 * 7) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.
 * 8) My article pertains to aminoacyl-tRNA and primarily their use as an intermediate between the genetic code (codons of an mRNA strand) and the generated protein following translation. Sadly, I do not find any information that may be applicable to my own article.
 * 9) Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?
 * 10) Yes, all of the new content appears to be supported with peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.
 * 11) Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?
 * 12) All of the sources utilized to draft the new information provided are fairly current. Each link redirected myself to the article used by the student author to draft their contribution to the Human Genome Wikipedia article.
 * 13) Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.
 * 14) Overall, I did not notice many grammatical errors. In terms of syntax perhaps, I would find it beneficial that, instead of saying "this sequencing" repeatedly, maybe instead utilize the name of the technique. This may ease readers and prevent confusion when reading this information. Also, if additional information is added regarding each technique, I would suggest further separating each technique into their own paragraph. This would further aid in the flow of the article and ease readers when attempting to process the information they are reviewing.
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) It appears that some of original images in the Human Genome Wikipedia article do not meet the criteria to be included on the page. These photos are not cited appropriately. These images include: the diploid karyotype (under the Genetic Information subsection), the bar graph diagram (under the Information Content subsection), and the pedigree (under the Human knockouts subsection).This student author did not utilize any new images in their contributions to the Human Genome Wikipedia article. However, the contributing student author should consider the information reported above.
 * 17) 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.
 * 18) I believe that this source may further enhance the contributions of the student author by providing yet another disorder to highlight. It has been discovered that, instead of the novel microarray analysis technique, whole-genome sequencing may be utilized to molecularly identify (not diagnose) autism spectrum disorder. This article delves into the ethical dilemma of genome sequencing and its use for fetuses prior to giving birth. This information could be presented in order to provide, in an unbiased manner, issues that many experience when approaching genetic testing. The article also discusses the notion that one single gene loci does not dictate the inheritance or development of autism spectrum disorder; it is only found in 1% of autism cases that a single loci lead to the disorder's development. It is discovered to be useful implementing genome-sequencing techniques, as they are capable of detecting the many mutant variants of various loci that may inevitably lead to autism spectrum disorder.
 * 19) I found it particularly difficult to find additional references to strengthen the article, particularly because I wanted to find a source to support the subsection that the student author was working on (specifically, the Human Genetic Disorders section).