User:Ddelrio08/Origin of transfer/Kbarkho Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Ddelrio08, Tahmina018, Zezhong

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ddelrio08/Origin_of_transfer?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Origin of transfer (hyperlink)

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

==Origin of Transfer Peer Review 1==

Lead

• This has not really been changed much to include new outside information; it sounds very similar to the original
• I do think that the first sentence does a goof job showcasing the main theme of the paper, especially because it's short, concise, and touches both on the structure and function of the origin of transfer
• The lead does not include an intro into the article's major sections.
  • Maybe include a sentence at the end alluding to what you will be talking about in the paper, like structure, function, applications, etc.
• The lead does not include extra information that was not in the original article; for this reason, I think the authors should incorporate some of the strong sources they found and extend the lead into a longer piece than what it is currently
  • I am also sure that most of the research papers will introduce this topic in similar ways, so just keep track of patterns and touch on those in your lead
• The lead is very concise and the way the authors summarized the important information is great, but I think it could include more detail
  • Ex: where are oriT's found? Do they look the same in every organism or are there different subtypes? etc.....

Content

• Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic; the authors do not stray away from oriT's
• The content is up to date, but I think there is more up to date content that should also be added
• I think all the content that is currently present does belong, but there is definitely content missing, for example the synthesis and function sections
  • This can be easily drawn from recent research papers
• This topic does deal with a gap in wikipedia's knowledge
  • The original article was extremely short and does not touch enough on the functions and applications of oriT's.

Tone and Balance

• The content that's added is neutral; the authors were not overtly biased towards the topic
• No, nothing that seems too biased towards one side
  • Although the authors should watch out for this potential issue when they start writing the functions and applications of oriT's
• No views are overrepresented or underrepresented
• The article is not taking a certain stance on the topic, nor is it presenting an argument; therefore, it is not attempting to persuade the reader of anything

Sources and References

• Yes, the content is backed up by reliable sources
• I don't think the sources accurately reflect what is written in the article; it seems as though there are more sources than things cited in the actual article
  • I also don't see any subscripts or superscripts using the numbers of the sources within the article
  • Try to incorporate this to make it easier for the reader to refer to the sources if needed
• I feel like the sources could be more thorough
  • I bet there are more papers on this topic since it's everywhere in biology
  • Some of the papers in the sources section are also a bit old, so I would encourage you to find some more recent papers as well to reflect what is known about the topic today

• All the hyperlinks in the text do work and they perfectly lead the reader to the wikipedia pages associated with that topic
  • I would recommend similarly checking the papers in the sources and ensuring that those papers are all still up and are not under debate either
    

Organization

• The content written is well-written and easy to read
  • To even increase the ease of reading more, I would recommend trying to avoid the use of parenthesis where you can because it can sometimes be more difficult for the reader to keep their same train of though from what was said before the phrase in the parenthesis started
• I have no major concerns about grammar or spelling errors
  • My one comment is when the authors say, "DNA in a helicase-like fashion, until it comes a full circle," I would delete the comma
• The article is broken down into some strong sections, I would recommend adding to these and coming up with new sections after seeing what is still needed to discuss
  • Ex: maybe while writing about the function, you see that this has an effect on certain diseases/disorders, and then you decide to start a new section about applications in medicine (this is just an example, I don't know if this leads to anything like that in medicine)

Images and Media

• The authors did not include any images, so this is not applicable

Overall, I would say to spend more time devising the sections and finding sources that are recent on the topic. This would strengthen the paper significantly. You are doing a great job being concise with your words, so keep that up!!

~~~kbarkho