Kayla’s Peer Review:
Does the article flow well? Well Organized?
The article flows very well. It is organized properly with subtitles and a logical progression from one topic to the next.
Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?
I think that the level of detail is appropriate. There is enough information that I can understand the topic, but not too much unnecessary detail. I am unsure if including so many examples of secondary structure images is necessary though, as I feel like this article should be entirely focused on the ribosomal frameshift itself.
Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant?
The content is in appropriate sections and is not redundant. I think you did a great job at dividing the article into proper sections and subsections, and having these arranged with a logical progression of topics.
Does each section stand alone?
Yes, each section stands alone, but all sections are related and relevant.
Is it neutral?
It is neutral, but I think the statement “Now the sentence makes no sense.” May sound slightly too casual for the context of Wikipedia. I might say something more like, “Now that the frame has been shifted, the sentence does not carry the same meaning, which reflects that the resulting amino acid sequence will be drastically different downstream of the frameshift”.
Is everything cited?
Most parts are properly cited, but not everything is cited. I would go back and add in citations after each sentence where any type of scientific information is stated.
Are there grammatical errors?
I did not see any grammatical errors.
What images would be useful?
It seems like you already added some good images of secondary structures. Maybe you could add some images of common trans-acting elements.
All images are explained clearly
The images in the last section are explained vary clearly with detailed captions.
Is it clear?
The article as a entire article is very clear. Great job.
Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?
Overall, all the information is very relevant. It might be relevant to talk a little bit about the biological implications of a ribosomal frameshift (i.e. how does this affect common complex biological processes?).
Scientific inaccuracy
The article’s information is all scientifically accurate. Really good job on the whole thing!
Isabel's Peer Review - Does the article flow well between ideas? Well organized? While the introduction provides useful information regarding examples of ribosomal frameshifts, it is not until the second section “Process Overview” that the reader is given a descriptive definition of the process and told what the phenomenon actually is. I think it would be more useful to have the Process Overview content in the introduction so the reader is given a clear description of the phenomenon before reading the rest of the article. I would suggest moving the content currently in the introduction into another section after the process overview content.
- Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little detail? The level of detail in the first paragraph currently feels like too much detail because numerous examples are provided without a clear definition of the phenomenon. This can be overwhelming for a reader if they do not a clear understanding of the process. I think placing this information after the process overview would make this level of detail more appropriate.
I think the “examples of secondary structure” section has too little detail because a majority of the section is an image and does not have a description of the process of by which RNA secondary structure regulates frameshifting. This can be easily fixed by placing it under the RNA secondary structure section.
- Does each section stand alone? The section “Examples of Secondary Structure” does not explain how secondary structure is important for the regulation of ribosomal frameshifting and cannot stand alone. If a reader does not read the earlier section “RNA secondary Structure” then they can be unaware of how the regulation occurs. I would recommend connecting the sections “RNA secondary structure” and “Example of Secondary Structures” because the ideas/topics are directly related.
- Is it neutral? Yes, this article does not feel like a persuasive article. Ideas and topics are each presented equally and neutrally.
- Everything cited? I think the second sentence of the article should have a citation.
- Grammar. Sentences are written well. I would just recommend finding another word for “rarer”.
- What images would be useful? All useful images are provided.
- All images are explained clearly. Each image is described well and gives clear explanation of the topic. I would only recommend that the Gallery of Secondary Structure be moved under the RNA secondary structure section.
- Is it clear? Does it make sense? The article is written very clear and manageable to understand.
- Irrelevant information? Is there information missing?
The term “wobble positions” is used in the Programmed -1 Ribosomal Frameshifting Section, however, no link or definition is provided to tell the reader what they are. I would recommend adding a definition or simply explaining what makes a position a “wobble position”. All other relavent information is provided and explained well.
- Scientific inaccuracy The article's content is scientifically accurate and written well.
things that can be expanded
editThis is a note to self - Annie
shine-dalgarno sequence details, medical implications
more mechanism details: good paper here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414006588?via%3Dihub
find out if each frameshift signal component separately is able to induce frameshifting (secondary structure?? i swear i saw a paper saying it could function independently but i cant find it at all)