User:Rhian07na/Solid lipid nanoparticle/VeryCatIonic Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Rhian07na/TomathanChem

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Rhian07na/Solid lipid nanoparticle

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

Solid lipid nanoparticle

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Lead has not been changed.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Not really
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • No

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, added more classes of LNPs and described NLCs and why they are important to know about (more controlled drug delivery)
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Most are peer-reviewed journal articles, which I think are first source of information.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
  • Yes, they accurately reflect the cited sources
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, lots of recent articles from ACS
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, lots of current sources from ACS within the 2020s
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Not really
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
  • No I think the ones liked are the most recent and from top peer-reviewed journals (ACS)
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, from characteristics -> synthesis -> application
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, minor topics within major topics

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes showing difference between NLC and SLN
• Are images well-captioned?
  • No captions yet
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Uses bio render, not sure if that is allowed.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, clear and shows differences clearly / and synthesis method is easy to follow.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes, the images help visualize LNP to people who are not seen before.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • images help with understanding and edits provide more clarity
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Probably more images, because LNP are a novel technology most people aren't yet familiar with.