User:SargasticSailor/RNA-directed DNA methylation/Zakiya Cobban Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

1.Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?

-Yes, although there are minor changes to the article, the revised sections are obvious and 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 straight forward in introducing the topic and giving a good definition.

3.What overall adjustments do you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes bean improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

'''-As stated as a wiki suggestion, the article is too technical for the average reader to understand. The article was a bit confusing for me to read and understand upon first look. I had to conduct research of my own to understand what the article was trying to say. Since this is a more complex topic, a significant amount of background knowledge should be added to the article so that the average reader can have a more clear view of the information.'''

'''I also think that the article is a bit brief. Surly there is more information that could help develop the article.'''

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

'''-Like my article, I find this article page to be a bit dull. I think It would be nice to add a couple of photos to make the page a bit more interesting.'''

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

'''-Yes, sources were added to the article. The original article had no sources to back up the information.'''

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

'''-Although the first source works, it is not current. It was published year 2013. The second source is current (2017) and works.'''

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

-There were no grammatical errors found in the 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 the page. The addition of an image would be a nice touch and would make the wiki page less dull.'''

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.

'''-In the introduction, it talks about how RdDm was first discovered in plants and then in fungi and animals. The editor could expand on the idea by creating a new section for each of the three organisms if enough information could be found on the specific organisms. This would lengthen the article while providing the readers with more knowledge.'''

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17255/ (This article may help)