User talk:Obtusesquare/sandbox

Peer Review by MooCow1

• In future drafts, the lead section should include more information on what you'll be discussing in the article. However, I do think it provides a good introduction to the topic thus far.
• In regard to the first sentence of your lead section, what are these inputs and outputs you're referring to? Some explanation as to what this means could be useful. This is something to keep in mind while writing the rest of the article as well. Given your topic is very technical, it is important to make sure you're keeping in mind that your audience may not already have a working knowledge of some of the terms being used, which will require you to really break down some of the concepts you are discussing.
• As you move into the second and third paragraphs of the "History" section, you begin to talk more about current issues and concerns with genetic sequencing. You may want to consider creating a new section to discuss these issues under a more telling heading.
• Be careful about the language you use in this section as well, particularly the second and third paragraphs again. Phrases like "there must be certain protections," "troubling instances," and "hasty policies" hint at your opinion on the matter. Though valid statements, you should steer away from using words and phrases that carry a certain connotation when objectively discussing certain topics.
• For your problems and confusions section:

I think it would be good to differentiate DNA encryption from DNA cryptography somewhere in your article and to even discuss DNA cryptography in more detail if it has relevance to DNA encryption. I would at least add a link to Genetic Privacy in your article and then add DNA encryption to the Genetic Privacy article if you think it would help to clarify any confusion on the matter.

• Your other proposed contributions look good. Make sure privacy protection/concerns is discussed thoroughly.
• Links to other articles look good. So far, I think Genetic Privacy is the only one that should added.
• Make sure you cite your sources throughout the article!

MooCow1 (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Qewel

The first sentence of the lead sections typically defines the article’s title before delving into the details about it. For now, the article is missing citations to sources.

The lead section also seems to encompass more than just summarizing the rest of the article like it should, going into detail that may be better suited in their own sections. For example, much of the middle of the lead section doesn't seem to correspond to what is in your current outline, although this may be an oversight on my part.

The "History" section is very detailed and robust, but I can see the section being divided into smaller subsections, especially with the middle paragraph pertaining to medical record violations, and how the last paragraph in the section pertains to computational aspects of genomics. These can easily be separated into smaller subsections to break up the "History" section of the article.

The amount of other articles being linked in your article is great! This ensures that your article won't be "orphaned" when moved onto the mainspace.

In looking at your possible concerns section, I do believe that the article and its content is adequate as a separate article from "Genetic Privacy." Perhaps including a section relating genetic privacy and DNA Encryption may be a good route to go.

Qewel (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review #2 by MooCow1

Your lead section has improved a lot! Your language is understandable and you do a good job of breaking down the topic and explaining what your article will be about.

The first paragraph of the "History" section is a little clunky towards the end when you begin to talk about potential privacy breeches. I would suggest trying to smooth out the language a bit here. You should also be more specific about what these "privacy breeches" entail. If you plan to discuss this in another section, you may consider removing it from here so as not to be redundant or confusing.

For the research section, it could be interesting to note that informed consent for research purposes no longer applies when a participant dies, so their genetic material can be used freely at that point, which raises a significant privacy concern (this was mentioned in the article I sent you).

I'd discuss the privacy concerns with Clinical Uses a little more. Explain the overlap with research and how that complicates things. The "research" section and "clinical" sections should both probably have more citations as well.

"Policy" section needs more citations.

Both "Clinical use" sections discuss similar things in regards to the research-medicine controversy. I would focus on differentiating these two sections more so that you aren't repeating yourself. Maybe only discuss privacy concerns in the concerns section of the article and leave the clinical use in the history section for a more plain outline of how genome sequencing is used being developed for personalized medicine.

May want to explain the different encryption methods a bit more. I don't what any of them are and I don't get an idea of it from what you have here.

Overall, I think the article is coming along really well. You cover a lot of ground and have what seems like a solid, Wikipeida-ready article as is. Nice job!

MooCow1 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Xkwhvzde

I think your article has improved--you have taken into account the different kinds of people that will be reading your article, not all of them will have a science background but the ideas your article had were explained thoroughly I do think you could benefit from more citations--specifically the history area. The subheadings need some extra citations and still be wary of how you word some of the terminology. Your areas of concern was the easiest section for me to read and I feel like you could add a little bit more information. Your lead paragraph is comprehensive and went into detail about what you are going to talk about in your article which helped me understand what the article was about overall. I do think that you could also benefit from looking over your article and try to make minor tweaks to how you phrase some sentences about terminology, I got a little stuck reading about some of the terms--particularly in the Clinical Uses area. I also want to add on to the point by MooCow1 about adding more privacy overlap to the Clinical Uses area would be helpful for the reader.

Xkwhvzde (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Qewel Peer Review 2

The article is looking great so far! You've been able to collect so many great sources, and throughout the article you've done a great job in citing the information you've collected. I still stumble a lot while reading the article however, likely due to my non-scientific background, so most of the points I have are just areas where I felt needed more clarification or simplification.

Under "Encryption Methods" the subsection titles themselves are at times quite difficult to grasp. Perhaps providing a definition of each or linking another Wikipedia page before going into detail for each would be beneficial.

Under the "Policy" section, many of the countries listed have subsections titled "Forensic science". The definition of forensic science may not be obvious to readers, so perhaps providing a brief sentence describing what it means and a link to its Wikipedia page in the introductory portion of the "Policy" section could help.

Overall, the article seems to be coming along well! Most of my concerns are solely on ensuring that terms that aren't normally understood by a wider audience are defined or linked to another page to offset any confusion. Great job!

Qewel (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Xkwhvzde Peer Review

Your article is looking really developed and detailed. You fixed a lot of the minor details from weeks prior and it has made your article smoother. Your lead paragraph had some minor details I think would benefit from change. In your first sentence, you include the word "perplexing" but I think the sentence could work better without it. The last sentence of your lead I think would benefit from a citation and from a small change of words. Using the terms "should" gets a little tricky because it sways a fact to an opinion. Your history section includes a lot of detail, the first paragraph in that section has plenty of hyperlinks that help understand your article better. Your sentences make the information you are explaining a lot more accessible. I think you can further expand on your section on African-Americans in the 1970s with sickle-cell anemia. I feel like expanding that would be helpful. Though I can see that you have not expanded too much on the United States, the information on other countries and how they treat forensic science tied very well. I am looking forward to reading more of your article and the additions you make. Xkwhvzde (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Qewel Peer Review 3

Your article is looking great! I have a couple of small suggestions, but overall, your article is substantive and well-supported by sources. This sentence: “...it has also generated serious conversation about the ethics and privacy risks that accompany this process of uncovering an individual’s essential instructions of being: their DNA sequence,” I believe either could be reworded or use a citation, as I believe the use of “essential” could be potentially biased if not supported by a source. The first two sentences under the Research section also appears to be missing sources, unless they were also derived from the same source as the sentence that follows after them, although I’m not quite sure. Another small thing is that per Wikipedia standards, citations are supposed to come after punctuation. Really great job! Qewel (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by MooCow1

Overall, the article looks great and can probably be added to the main space as is. I have a few notes on some general things to keep in mind. Firstly, make sure you're adding more citations. I can definitely tell you have been, but some sections, especially the "History" and "areas of Concern" sections are still lacking citations in some areas. Secondly, when discussing the potential for privacy risks, you may consider adding some specific threats. For example, when talking about the National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database, you mention how storing this information comes with the many potential privacy risks, but you never go into what these risks actually are. I think that would something worth discussing.Additionally, when discussing Biobanks, it might be interesting to mention some of the concerns with the inconsistencies between the access models. How does having minimal control compare with tight control in regards to the security of the samples within. Lastly, when using very technical terms, especially in the "encryption methods" section, a brief note on what the term means could be useful though not necessary since you link most of them to other articles.

MooCow1 (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by MooCow1

In last week's lab meeting, we had discussed possibly changing the format of the article to have encryption methods along with the concern they address. After looking through your article again, I maintain my support for this idea. I think it would make it easier to understand what the encryption method is if it is paired with the problem it solves for. I think this would give a reader who isn't familiar with encryption a better mental image of what these encryption methods do, as well a give them a real life application of it. Everything is looking good. Continue to expand on the policy issues of other countries. I'd say this article is ready for the mainspace as is and any other improvements can be made afterwards. Good work! MooCow1 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Xkwhvzde

In last week’s lab, you talked about how your article could potentially fit into two different articles. I am unsure of how exactly you were going to divide but I think the information that you have included is thorough. In terms of how your article is divided into different countries, make sure that you include the information needed before uploading! In reading your Forensic Science section, I was a little confused on the information. I think making it a little more clear for those who don’t understand the terminology is important, but I can also understand that its difficult to make the terminology easier than you already have. Your Encryption Methods is the easiest to read because of how you divided it. The terminology you used is easy to understand as well and you have also linked a lot of other terms that can be found in Wikipedia! I think your article is definitely ready for the Mainspace! Xkwhvzde (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)