User:Thomasmk1/Acridine orange/Damian1997sowa Peer Review

Peer review

 * 1) Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is clear and obvious which sections have been revised, the topics revised include Acridine orange, optical properties, history and uses. The new content seems to contribute to the existing sections and adds more information.
 * 2) What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative. It provides a great expiation of what Acridine orange is and its uses with words that are not too hard to understand and seem to fit Wikipedia in terms of source of clearly written information. The edited version of the optical properties does a great job of describing its strengths and weaknesses in uses of differentiation and detection of the type of cells present.
 * 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? Overall the article was good, I would just recommend clarifying thoughts and editing grammatical errors so that it flows more easily and that it has all the information needed to understand what you're conveying. Grammatical corrections are listed in number 7.
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. Personally, I did not find anything in this article to correlate into my article since our topics are very different.
 * 5) Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information? First source is reliable but it is a research article while wikipedia prefers sources as review articles. Second article also seems to be from a primary experiment conducted. Third article seems to be a reliable source while also being a reviewed article.
 * 6) Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work? Most sources are current and all links work. Only 1 source that was published before 2015.
 * 7) Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found. Mostly everything looked good, only under the edited Acridine Orange there was a sentences that didn't make sense, I recommend removing "the" in your first sentence after the words "vesicles by". Also, in the same section, second sentence needs clarification. Next, under the history portion, in the sentence with 1980, I would say "a study involved the comparison of acridine orange..." to make the sentence flow smoother.
 * 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 photos attached 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 have an article and just basing off the abstract I believe it could be good for the report it includes interaction of hemoglobin and heme protein and the acridine orange dyes. Also it's a peer-reviewed article which is what wiki prefers as sources. Hope it helps with your article and wish you the best of luck on the rest of the project.
 * 10) 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2016.03.045, https://www-sciencedirect-com.nuncio.cofc.edu/science/article/pii/S1011134416301142?via%3Dihub