User:Wilkinsonre/Galanin/H.Bergmann01 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?
 * 2) Yes, it is easy to see which sections of the articles have been added to. There has been a lot of content made to the clinical significance of galanin, and some contributions to the tissue distribution as well. All of the content is relevant.


 * 1) What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative.
 * 2) The article thoroughly explains how galanin interacts in various parts of the body. The functions and effects of galanin have been added and older content has been improved by these contributions. I found the addition of galanin's link to depression intriguing and highly informative.


 * 1) 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?
 * 2) I think that the author should add more content to the following:
 * 3) Tissue distribution: How does galanin function in the keratinocytes, eccrine sweat glands, around blood vessels, and endocrine tumors
 * 4) Clinical characteristics: I would suggest adding more information to this section. Does it affect the stimulation of food intake in humans? How is it specifically involved in addiction? Does it interact with the chemicals in the brain that are involved in addiction, etc.? How does it weaken cognitive performance? For depression, could you briefly include what glucocoticoid does so that the reader can see what galanin is increasing exactly?
 * 5) I think that with adding this information, it would provide the article with a deeper explanation of galanin's function in various aspects.
 * 6) Adding these ideas along with a possible introduction to the article would be most beneficial.


 * 1) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.
 * 2) I didn't notice anything that could be specifically applied to my article. However, I should add some more clinical aspects.


 * 1) Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?
 * 2) All of the content provided has been thoroughly researched and explained in reliable sources.


 * 1) Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?
 * 2) All of the links work, but they are from around 2010. I would suggest finding some more sources that are a little more up to date.


 * 1) Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.
 * 2) The only grammatical error that I found was in the depression section. Specifically, this part: "Currently, one of the potential mechanism for this". Mechanisms should be plural. I would proofread before submitting to catch any other errors.


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) There are no images present in this article.


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) Yoon, Daseul; Bae, Kieun; Lee, Min-Kyeong; Kim, Jin Hee; Yoon, Kyong-Ah (2018). "Galanin is an epigenetically silenced tumor suppressor gene in gastric cancer cells". PloS One. 13 (2): e0193275. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193275. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5819827. PMID 29462183. 
 * 3) I believe that this source would be of value to this article. It could be an addition to the clinical characteristics section or a brief expansion in the tissue distribution section, where galanin is mentioned to be found in tumors. This article discusses that galanin expressed in certain cells induces apoptosis and that hypermethylation of galanin impairs this neuropeptide's function as a tumor suppressor.

_____________________________________________________

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? (provide username)
 * Wilkinsonre
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Wilkinsonre/Galanin

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Not present

Lead evaluation
There is no lead present in the article. I would recommend providing a brief introduction about Galanin. What is galanin? What are some brief functions? What are its components?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. They added a little information about tissue distribution.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Tissue distribution: How does galanin function in the keratinocytes, eccrine sweat glands, around blood vessels, and endocrine tumors?

Clinical characteristics: I would suggest adding more information to this section. Does it affect the stimulation of food intake in humans? How is it specifically involved in addiction? Does it interact with the chemicals in the brain that are involved in addiction, etc.? How does it weaken cognitive performance? For depression, could you briefly include what glucocoticoid does so that the reader can see what galanin is increasing exactly?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, addressed in the content evaluation
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, within the last 10 years
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The student used great secondary sources. All of them are very detailed, full of relevant information, and are backed up.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well-written and easy to read. It could be expanded so that an average person could understand what some of the biological terms mean simply by briefly adding their function or other minor information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Very few. However, I would recommend proofreading.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The content is visually appealing. It is well-written and only provides relevant information to the subject. The average person may not understand a few things, which I had commented on, so I recommend expanding a little bit. I did catch one or two grammatical errors, so I would recommend going through the article and checking before publishing.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?
 * The content added definitely expanded the article. A lot of new and relevant information was added that helped beef the article up a bit. The article's quality has elevated since this addition.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added has a lot of key information on galanin. Most of which is with regards to galanin's clinical significance.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would include some additional information about galanin itself. Most of the content added was to its clinical aspects. There could be some information added outside of that.

Overall evaluation
This article is well written with great content and many sources. It does need somewhat of an introduction and a few minor expansions that I previously mentioned. Lastly, proofread for minor errors before publishing.