User:Woodis9/Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/Alexis Skipper 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? It is definitely obvious which sections of the article have been revised. You added a lot of new and informative information that the original article was clearly lacking. The extent of your revisions shows you did a great deal of research. I thought it was smart to make several sections and have more of an introduction and then expand on subtopics. The new content is relevant to the topic that was edited.  
 * 2) What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative. I think the article does an awesome job at explaining what NK cells do. I also like that you tried to relate NK cells to something else more people are probably familiar with, memory cells. Some of the information provided that I found very informative is that ADCC is important in the use of vaccines. I like learning about new things when its something that can be applied to being apart of a normal lifestyle.
 * 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? One of the first things I would adjust would be the subtopic title “By NK cells”. I know that is what the title was in the original article, however it is kind of confusing and not very explanatory for the amount of work you put into that section. I would do a title that tells the reader you are talking about the function of NK cells. Other than that, there are some sentences that I kind of got caught up on. I am not sure if its just my grammatical skills, but maybe just re-read and make sure everything flows.
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you review that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know. I personally did not notice anything about the article that could be applicable to mine. My article is on Testis-Determining Factors so a bit of a different subject. However, with that being said, I think overall you did an excellent job at presenting your material and I think this would definitely come to use for many of others if published.
 * 5) Is all new content backed by a reliable source of information? All the new content is backed up by a reliable source of information.
 * 6) Are the sources fairly current (>2015)? Check a few links. Do they work? Out of the four sources provided, three of them are >2015. Yes, they all work.
 * 7) Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found. There are a few grammatical errors. One that I found was: The most common of these Fc receptor on the surface… It should be Fc receptors on the surface…
 * 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. I looked at the one picture’s detail and it looked like it was created by someone that worked on the article previously. I would check in to see if that is allowed. It does not seem very legit or backed up.
 * 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://www.nature.com/articles/cmi201310   I found this on google scholar. I think it would be beneficial in the “Other Medical Applications”. It talks about the critical roles NK cells play in host immunity against cancer. I found it pretty informative.