User:Mugfordjl/Initiation factor/Wilkinsonre 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 is very obvious which sections of the article have been revised and all of the new content is relevant to the topic.

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 article is very good at clearly explaining the information without making it overly complicated, which makes it easier to absorb and understand. The information was presented in a straightforward and organized manner, which always makes it easier for the audience to read. I was impressed by the sheer amount of information that was added to the article, especially with all of the different types of initiation factors' structures and functions as well as the ways that initiation factors may have a role in cancer. I found the explanation as to why initiation factors would be involved in cancer very informative. Spending the time to explain why they are involved, instead of just pointing out which ones are involved, cleared up some confusion I initially had.'''

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?

'''I really like everything you already have in the article, so I really only have one suggestion. You specify “translational initiation factors in human cancers,” so maybe you could add in translational initiation factors involved in other cancers that aren’t human. I think this addition would be an improvement because it can show how the translational initiation factors in humans and other species are different and why that specification of human cancers matters. '''

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

I did not notice anything about your article that could be applicable to my own article.

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

'''It does not seem that all new content is backed up, unless if you are using the same source for a paragraph and then included that source at the end of the paragraph. For example, “'''In cancerous cells, initiation factors assist in cellular transformation and development of tumors. The survival and growth of cancer is directly related to the modification of initiation factors and is used as a target for pharmaceuticals. Cells need increased energy when cancerous and derive this energy from proteins. Over-expression of initiation factors correlates with cancers, as they increase protein synthesis for proteins needed in cancers. Some initiation factors, such as eIF4E, are important in synthesizing specific proteins needed for the proliferation and survival of cancer.” Does not have a source until the end, unless if you were using source 7 for the statements preceding the last sentence as well.

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

'''Only one of the sources is more recent than 2015, but a fair few are from about 2011-2012 with only a couple or some from around the early 2000s. All of the links pulled up the corresponding article.'''

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

'''I did not find any obvious typographical/grammatical errors, but I’m not particularly good at grammar. I did, however, notice a phrase that was included in quotation marks (they each contain a “five-stranded beta sheet packed against two alpha helices."), which I don’t think is allowed in Wikipedia articles.'''

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 the 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 that “Eukaryotic initiation factor 4A (eIF4A) during viral infections” '''could be a useful reference to add information to your article. It is rather recent (published in 2019) and has a free full text online. In addition, it goes talks about the structure and function of eIF4A, which is not mentioned in your structure and function section, but is mentioned in your cancer section. Therefore, I think it could help to pull together your two sections.'''