User talk:Aureliall/draft

Hi Aureliall, I will be reviewing your article. Here are my edits listed below.

1. Does the article flow well? Well organized? The article flows relatively well. There are several things that I would suggest. I would shorten the introduction and move part of it to a completely new section. I would group the sentences where you describe the "Greek origin" of the word into an entirely new section as well. This has no relation to why the reader would care to look up kataegis. This is a rather superfluous detail to include in the main introduction. Another suggestion would be to change the tense of the entire passage to be the same, particularly present, tense. There are both present and past tense verbs, making it particularly difficult to read. For organization, please see the suggestions above on grouping. Also, you do not have to generate your own reference section. This is automatically performed by Wikipedia when you add a citation.

2. Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little? The level of detail seems appropriate. However, I would cut down on the origins of the word, and move it to a different section. I would like to see more detail for clinical significance, perhaps.

3. Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant? Yes. This is a strong point in your article. I found little to no redundancies in your sections. Each offered new information.

4. Does each section stand alone? Yes. But I would try to connect them to the overall section more. For example, try to explain more why APOBEC enzyme family and TLS DNA polymerase are considered "mechanisms."

5. Is it neutral? Yes. I did not detect any bias.

6. Is everything cited? Yes. But don't forget to fix the reference section, as aforementioned.

7. Are there grammatical errors? Yes. There are quite a few. Several have to do with singular and plural usage. Others have to do with matching tenses. For example "Compare to other cancer-related mutations, such..." should be "Compared..."

8. What images would be useful? Some images regarding the APOBEC enzyme family perhaps, or a graphic showing the changes from either C→T or G→T. The protein data base should also have an image for TLS DNA polymerase and Rev1.

9. All images are explained clearly? Yes. The rainfall plot is explained quite well. But please delete the "we."

10. Is it clear? Yes and no. Although the level of detail is appropriate, it could be explained more clearly. The organization does need some work.

11. Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing? Perhaps the origins of the word could be deemed irrelevant but this is a personal choice. However, clinical significance does seem understudied and does need more information.

12. Scientific inaccuracy Whatever was presented seemed accurate and there were no glaring errors that I found.

Overall, this was a very good article. Some pictures, fixing of grammatical errors, and better organization would help to improve this. Hope my suggestions help! Biochem153aj (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

I think the introduction section is a little disjointed between the first and second paragraph. The second paragraph could be moved somewhere else in the article.

Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?

I think that the level of detail was appropriate but perhaps some more detail could be added to the Clinical Significance section.

Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant? Yes, the content is in appropriate sections and I did not notice any redundancies.

Does each section stand alone? Yes, each section has enough detail to stand alone.

Is it neutral? Yes, the article is neutral.

Is everything cited? Everything seems to be cited.

Are there grammatical errors? There are a few grammar/syntax errors (I edited some of the ones I found). Try to maintain a consistent verb tense throughout the article unless another tense is necessary. In the last sentences of the APOBEC enzyme family section, I would avoid using the word “proves.” Maybe including a picture that

What images would be useful? Images of what a kataegis regions could potentially look like in comparison to a non mutated genome could be useful for demonstration. Perhaps an image of the structures of the two enzymes mentioned, APOBEC and TLS DNA polymerase.

All images are explained clearly Yes, the rainfall plot is explained clearly.

Is it clear? Overall, I think the article is written clearly. However, I would at the beginning of the APOBEC enzyme family section, write out what APOBEC stands for.

Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing? I don’t think there is any irrelevant information. Although the information about the etymology of the term kataegis is not that important, it is still interesting.

Scientific inaccuracy Can’t say.

NSLIVITSANOS (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)