User:Ama042/Dental pulp stem cell/Nsr009 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ama042


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ama042/Dental pulp stem cell


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dental pulp stem cell

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - My poster has not added anything to the lead but has added several phrases and has fixed gramatical mistakes to make the article easier to understand.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the content explains the differination of cells from Dental pulp stem cells, which my the infomation easier to understand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - The content is up to date with the most recent sources avaible from dental pulp research.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - More information pertaining to the relevence of dental pulp cell use would be helpful, but there is limited knowledge know on the relevence of Dnetal Pulp.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -


 * Are the sources thorough - The sources are all peer reveiwed Jounral Articles/
 * Are the sources current? - Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?:
 * 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.) -.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - Yes the content is well written and better's the reader's understanding of dental pulp stem cells by simplfiying complax terms.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes DPSCs can be collected from the dental pulp by means of a non-invasive practice that can be performed on a living adult after simple extraction and on the young after surgical extraction of wisdom teeth, a routine surgical procedure plus with fewer ethical issues (Gronthos et al., 2000; Miura et al., 2003; d’Aquino et al., 2009).
 * The different cell populations, however, differ in certain aspects of their growth rate in culture, marker gene expression, and cell differentiation, although the extent to which these differences can be attributed to the tissue of origin, function, or culture conditions remains unclear (V olponi, Pang & Sharpe, 2010).

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - rThe article is overall well writtten, I think more could be added on the use of dental pulp cells and how it affects the daily lives of patients.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article does a great job of breaking down complex terms, making it easier for readers to follow.


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? Yes
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Yes, the article is realted to medical biology
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? No, not much is known about the history or use of dental pulp cells in the past it is a fairly new area of research.
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?