User:Keianahaigh/AF4/FMR2 family/Woodis9 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 was apparent from the original text that there were two clear parts that were revised and added to. The new content was relevant, but also expanded the information present. I think the added content is great at presenting new information.'''

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

'''There is a lot of information presented in the edit that wasn’t in the original article. The verbiage is also impressive, and I had to sit through and read it a few times to make sure that I was really taking in every word, because every word had some new information about the genes.'''

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?

'''Because there was so much information added, I think that some sections could be made out of the original article. I feel like an introduction could also be added or adjusted so that the article has a more concise and clear summary before diving into the different subjects further on.'''

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

'''I’m really interested in the gene regulation that these genes are involved in! It just barely touches on my topic of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, as the cellular membrane signal receptors have a lot to do with genetic regulation and interactions between different cell types. It’s also cool to see how so many things relate to cancer due to the amount of funding that’s gone into cancer research.'''

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

'''The content may have been backed by reliable sources, but there were no clear in-text citations to each source. You can insert citations I think directly from the “edit” page, so this should be a really quick fix!'''

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

'''One of the sources was as recent as 2017, but the other two were a little older than that (2003 and 2011, I believe, so it really wasn’t bad!). There weren’t any links to the articles used as sources, but adding those in shouldn’t be difficult at all since y’all already have the DOIs listed.'''

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

Some sentences, like the one about a drosophila orthologue, seem a little out of place or like they could get deleted, even though it was present in the original article.

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 on this page.

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.

I think this source ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30693017/?from_term=Af4+cancer&from_filter=simsearch2.ffrft&from_filter=simsearch3.fft&from_filter=pubt.review&from_filter=ds1.y_5&from_pos=3 ) provides more information if y’all want to write more about cancer, and it reviews recent research.