User:MDDominguez91/Nuclear export signal/Jacksonad7 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?

'''Yes, it is obvious as to which sections of the article has been revised. Every revised section is clearly marked and the old text is pasted above it. All of the revised sections are pasted below the old text in an organized manner and clearly stated. I definitely think that the revised sections are relevant to the topics to which they pertain to. In the first section I think that it was beneficial to go in deeper to more of the function unique to nuclear export signals. I think your addition of the mRNA transport section is very helpful in further explaining the NES. Finally, I think that your addition of the chemotherapy section is very relevant to medical practices today as caner is still a very pressing topic. I think that showing how NES are involved with chemotherapy was a very good addition.'''

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

'''I think that the article does a very good job at explaining what nuclear export signals are and some of their functions, but in a very concise manner. I was very impressed with the chemotherapy section and found it very interesting. I thought it was interesting that by limiting a cells nuclear transport activity the resistance to chemotherapy could be reversed. I think that if more information is done on this in the future the effects can be amplified and could be very beneficial to the war on cancer. I think it is very significant knowledge that by producing antibodies to target NES surviving, apoptosis of cancer cells can be increased.'''

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?

'''While I think that the adjustment that have been made to the article are very good and highly necessary, I think that they could be expanded on. For example, is there NES involved in anything else relevant to caner? Even expanding the mRNA transport section could be beneficial, like explaining why NES’s relevance to mRNA transport is especially important. I also think that adding pictures of these mechanisms would be very beneficial in further explanation, and would even clear up some remaining confusion. I think that the combination of all of these changes would greatly improve the article and make it much more informative.'''

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

'''Our articles differ quite a lot but I think that your chemotherapy section could be relevant to my article which is the Adaptive Response. A large portion of the adaptive response is the gradual conditioning of an organism to a particular stressor as a way to promote tolerance to that stressor. From your article you state that the process of nuclear export may be responsible to resistance to chemotherapy drugs. The adaptive response may be involved in this as the body is being conditioned with the drugs and potentially developing some tolerance to them. This may be interesting to look into for both of our articles as it would explain the interconnectedness or various processes related to cancer.'''

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

All new content is backed up by reliable sources as they are all published scientific articles.

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

'''All of the sources are current except for the first source as it spans from 1997-11, so I would suggest maybe finding a more current article that explain these findings. This may also lead you to new information as well. All of the links to the sources are functioning.'''

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

'''In the first section, the sentence right after the hyperlink to the first source has an “is” that should be an “are”. The sentence directly following this one should have a comma between “function” and “and”. In your mRNA transport section, the second sentence has a “the” which should be “this”. in the second to last sentence of this section there is an unnecessary “and” after “nucleus”. The world “cells” in the second sentence of your chemotherapy section should have an apostrophe. In the sentence right after the sentence that talks about mitotic spindles, the words “more expressed” should be switched to “expressed more”. By making these changes I think your article will be more effective.'''

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.

No images in text.

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.

https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/61/8/3443.short

'''I think this article can be helpful in expanding your chemotherapy section. It talks about how the Beclin-1 proteins in humans contain a leucine-rich nuclear export signal motif, which may be required for its tumor suppressor function. This could be a nice contrast to this section because currently you are talking about how NESs involved in the resistance to chemotherapy, and this could provide an example of how NESs can help suppress cancer.'''

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?