User talk:Katiepng/talk/PeerReview

Peer review
The first sentence into each section could be more direct on the topics Your language use is good and not confusing but could be simpler and more explicit. The citation 19 link doesn't work. DOI missing in 7, 16, 18, 27 Date issues in citations 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23-37 line issues in citations 34, 27

History:

How did the experiments support TNR's link to the onset of the disease? The third paragraph could be worded differently (it's a little awkward when introducing the 4 types of TNR and "others") myotonic trophy disease page does not exist. There should be no link introduction of onset could explain it more (or link to a page) The last paragraph introduces a small number of long sequences vs large amounts of short sequences. Is there a difference? And explain how polymerase is relevant to southern blot

Timing:

For the timing, introduce the FXS acronym. Maybe rethink the title. The explanation of the difference between male/female long occurrence could be simpler. TLP page does not exist. The last paragraph explains nicely.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Katie
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Content
Guiding questions:


 * The content added seems relevant and interesting
 * The content seems up to date, as are the citations

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The tone is neutral and balanced.
 * There is information about lesser known points about TNR/ points not accessible to everyone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Almost all of the sources are up reliable. One does not work (19) and there are a few missing DOIs (7, 16, 18, 27).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * The content added has good information, but the wording could be more precise, explicit in ideas, and explain more simply.
 * No obvious grammar or punctuation issues.
 * The organization of the information could be improved, and the title "timing" could be turned into something more fitting.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The article is better than it was before.
 * The content added has a lot of citations and supporting literature.
 * There could be more explanation and the removal of page links to pages that do not exist.