User:Socratic mindset/Biomarkers of aging/Gabriellekostur 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?Socratic Mindset (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Biomarkers of aging

(Dr. McCoy's Peer Review Template)

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

I can tell that the introduction was edited pretty obviously- will get more into later. As well for each added section ( methylation, histone addition, etc....) I could tell that additional information was put in there. The new information is relevant to the topic! It's just a little bit more detail as to what biomarkers, what they do, and certain components of a biomarker that may alter DNA. A lot of good material was added. Good work!

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

This article gives good, specific information to bring further knowledge to its audience. One thing that impressed me the most with this article was the specificity on which cells, proteins, enzymes, and marks (sites) apply to the biomarkers in aging. The most informative subset of this article (to me) was "Immune Biomarkers" - because not only do I think it was written the best, but it includes all of the key details and mentions diseases that could arise from the aging of biomarkers. It was definitely of my interest and caught my attention. I'm real jealous of how good your content table looks.

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?

Some overall adjustments that I recommend to implement in this article is to reread your sentences and see if they are clear and to see if the sentencesnare run-ons. The information you have is good, it just takes a few rereads to fully comprehend the material you are trying to communicate. As for the information that does come off as a bit unclear, it seems to arise from grammatical (punctuation) issues. I think these changes would improve your wiki page because your audience would get your provided information as soon as they read it. Almost dumb it down a little bit because not everyone clicking on this article will get what you are talking about. As mentioned previously, the one thing I think you can do to improve your article is just rereading it out loud so your information can be presented clearer.

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

I definitely need to take my own advice in reading out loud and finding a way I can communicate my material in a clear and concise manner and that anyone who clicks on my wiki page can understand what I am talking about. (because mine is R O U G H) I also need to add more background info so anyone can know what the AF2 family is :)

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

The new info is backed up by reliable info. I clinked on some of the sources and found them credible to publish such information that can be referenced.

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

All of the sources are current except one. The very first source cited


 * 1) Baker GT, Sprott RL (1988). "Biomarkers of aging". Experimental Gerontology. 23 (4–5): 223–39. doi:10.1016/0531-5565(88)90025-3. PMID 3058488.

was written in like 1988. Very outdated but could be useful in the fact that it is a building block for this newer information presented.

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

In your first sentence, (not really grammatical) but restate later age. Also if you look at your second paragraph don't forget a comma after "Although". Also maybe look at rephrasing sentences for a better flow. Not grammatical again... but in the last paragraph of your article you mention the word "broad" expand more into that (kinda comes off as casual). And do not forget to add that apostrophe in 20's. The very last sentence is a run off. Try to split that bad boy up or get rid of some words to clearly present your point.

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 on this bad boy!

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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12557

https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12557

This article is pretty cool. It talks about how there are signature biomarkers in human bodies. And along with that, it talks about what the biomarkers are (including their functions and association to aging). It further goes into the fact that just because a biomarker is altering, it does not indicate aging. This would be a good addition to your article to talk more about the functions of biomarkers, specifically to aging. This new info would make you look like Dr.Biomarkerofaging and give your audience a little bit more background information on the relation between biomarkers and aging. Good luck on the rest of your article, you're doing great!

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?