User talk:KBednarik/Human genome /Rmmariusz Peer Review

"Human Genome" contribution by KBednarik reviewed respectfully by Rmmariusz on March 27, 2020.

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

topic?

The revised content is clearly visible and enhances the collective purpose of the article by emphasizing the more prominent effects of the human genome and how its contents interact with the environment and within the genome.

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 edited and added contribution clearly and consistently emphasizes very important details and information regarding how the human genome works. The overall purpose of the article is strongly supported by an introduction of how the human genome can exhibit faulty features and processes as well as a resovoir of commonly present condition to reference from along with their respective ratios.

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?

Perhaps do not become redundant with the provided/edited information (e.g. "As noted above...") There is no need to reiterated given information.

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

Let them know.

I strongly believe that the implementing of a chart greatly organizes the examples of your edited contribution/topic. Referencing other Wiki pages to provide further information is also really helpful.

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

All of the provided content is thoroughly supported by the specified articles that were cited. A good generalization of the information from the articles proves useful throughout the compiled charts and provided abbreviations.

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

All articles are contemporary, deriving from 2016 and 2017. All links work although an account is needed to access to files it seems but that is not due to your efforts. The sites are being really difficult. Good references!

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

Exclude comma at "...in the CFTR gene, and is the most..."

Exclude comma at "...of gene function, and are fortunately..."

Consider putting "...currently there are approximately 2,200..." in parenthesis or make it into a new sentence.

Remove/revise "As noted above..." as a reiteration is not necessary.

Consider separating "...Kallman syndrome and Pfeiffer syndrome.." by a comma as it make the rest of the sentence inconsistent.

Be more clear with what you mean by "...to narrow the genome down..." perhaps.

Overall great grammar with excellent choice of vocabulary!

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.

All images are clearly described and are comprehensible by the reader in addition to their extreme support to the article's main goal to both generalize and provide sufficient information regarding the human genome and its supplementary topics.

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

This article might prove useful in that it touches upon the human genome and cardiovascular disease and a few intricate details such as cholesterol concentration and sodium conservation within the blood in addition to evolutions effect on the matter.

http://nuncio.cofc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=29726690&site=eds-live&scope=site