User:Owenwilborn/Artificial transcription factor/Emilyrd77 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Owenwilborn


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Artificial transcription factor
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Artificial transcription factor

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has been updated to reflect the content added by my peer.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence that describes the article’s topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead includes a brief description of some of the article’s major sections. The applications are not described in the Lead. (Addressed)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added to the article is relevant as it pertains to artificial transcription factors.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up-to-date as the sources are fairly recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not appear to be content that is missing or content that does not belong. I would recommend clarifying the section on ATF DNA-binding domain as it appears that this section is about making ATFs but it is a little bit unclear. Additionally, for the applications, I found some papers indicating the use of ATFs in targeting cancer: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304419X12000753 (2013 review), Selective inhibition of P-glycoprotein expression in multidrug-resistant tumor cells by a designed transcriptional regulator - PubMed (nih.gov) and https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/63/24/8968.full.pdf. (Addressed)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no overrepresented nor underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position nor away from another.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information as peer reviewed articles were used.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content appears to reflect what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources appear to cover the main topics in literature. There is potential to add more sources for support including more research articles on engineering ATFs. Here are some other articles https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006295202011504 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283605011435 which provides a review of zinc fingers and some background details on ATFs. (Addressed)
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are relatively current as they are within the last 20 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are from multiple different authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * The article relies on peer-reviewed articles and there are not better sources available. There is potential to increase the number of sources by using the articles listed above. (Addressed)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work. Note that some sources are behind paywalls as they are from peer reviewed articles.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is pretty well-written, concise, clear, and primarily easy to read. One suggestion is altering the sentence in the regulatory domain section that is very similar to the one in the Lead. (Addressed)
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There appear to be minor grammatical or spelling errors. In the last sentence in the Lead there should be a comma between interchangeable and permitting. It also seems like “out compete” should be outcompete or out-compete and “down regulate” should be one word . (Addressed)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized. I think it would be helpful to distinguish between the section 1.1 DNA-Binding Domain in the ATF Design section and section 2 ATF DNA-Binding Domain. For the applications, a section could be added on the use of ATFs in targeting cancer (links to articles are included above). (Addressed)

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes a video but the relationship to the topic is unclear. (Addressed)
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There is not a detailed caption for the video. (Addressed)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The video adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The video is very small and could be made larger which would increase visual appeal. (Addressed)

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added definitely improves the overall quality of the article and makes the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added include the detailed explanation of the two domains and the potential applications of ATFs.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added could be improved by making the ATF DNA-Binding Domain section clearer as I am unsure whether this relates to synthesis of ATFs or more applications. Furthermore, additional information could be added to the design, zinc fingers, and applications sections as indicated above with the sources provided. I would also recommend explaining the video in more detail and increasing the size. Furthermore, I suggest indicating that currently there is no algorithm for determining the exact DNA sequence from the protein amino-acid sequence, since future work may change this. (Addressed)

Overall Awesome Job!