User:SamSenatore/Upstream and downstream (transduction)/NKopp14 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? (Sam Senatore)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SamSenatore/Upstream and downstream (transduction)

1. Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic? '''Yes. Sam added a significant amount of information in a very informative way. Previous to Sam’s addition, the article on Upstream and Downstream (transduction) was simply a definition. Now the article has examples, demonstrations, determinants of TGF-β action, contextual factors that determines TGF-β response, and upstream TGF-β signaling pathway which provide a detailed all around understanding of 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 transitions well. It starts with a definition/demonstration and then has the key points about TGF- β’s action, response and pathways.'''

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 think a good next step that would improve the article would be adding a detailed section about downstream transduction. The last sentence in your upstream transduction paragraph is a great spot to transition into downstream. This would be a good improvement to make the article more well-rounded.'''

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. '''The article was formatted very well. I like how the article first gives a definition and an example before going into the key points of transduction.'''

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

Yes, all sources are scholarly sourced articles.

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

'''There are some that are older than the years 2015, the reference #’s are 2,4,5,6,7,8. All of the articles sources do work and are scholarly articles.'''

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

'''The article is typed well with very few grammatical errors. I believe the references should be alphabetized.'''

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. '''Yes, two images were included in Sam’s edit to this wiki article. Both of the images are acceptable and helpful with the understanding on transduction and each image has a description underneath them.'''

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://europepmc.org/article/med/1911646#impact 

·       1. Plant Biology Laboratory, Salt Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186-5800.

The New Biologist, 31 May 1991, 3(6):538-548

PMID: 1911646

'''I would use this article to add in a section on downstream transduction after the section on upstream. This source can also be used as an example for downstream transduction with their study on plants and how it affected chloroplast, stem growth, leaf development, etc..'''

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?