User:AMYCREYNOLDS/Semiconservative replication/Socratic mindset Peer Review

Peer review

Overall evaluation

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

Yes, the article clearly states what sections are being replaced/edited. The new content is clear and relevant to the topics they are under.

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 article is very clear and concise and easy to understand the concepts explained. I thought it was interesting reading about how under further applications that the newly replicated strand could have the ability to activated or deactivate certain phenotypes.

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?

I'd like to learn more about how the natural selection plays a role in dna replication and how some phenotypes on dna are activated and deactivated. Details on this topic would help to strengthen the article.

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

Nothing that particularly matched up with my article. If there was a part of the page that talks about disadvantages or further applications of semi conservative in eukaryotic organisms and how their telomerases shorten after each replication as a disadvantage of semi conservative replication, I would be able to connect that to my article.

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

After reading through all the sources, I was able to verify that they are all from reputable sources.

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

All the sources work and only one source was from >2015, which is 2019. The other two were 1976 and 2004. The 1976 source was a old study that has been tried and tested over time and continues to hold.

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

The last two sentences you can replace the word "it" with the noun it is referring to. Other than that on suggestion, I saw no other issues with the article.

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.

The image of semi conservative replication was acceptable and clearly described under details. Also, it was properly referenced to the original creator.

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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21113/

This would be a great article because it goes into detail about the different types of DNA replication machinery for bacteria, archea, and eukarya. This would add to the page by giving details on how each type of ___domain undergoes semi conservative replication in different or similar ways.^[1]

1. Brown, Terence A. (2002). Genome Replication. Wiley-Liss.