User:Angelicas1216/Polymyxin/AlanMercado2 Peer Review

This is my peer review of the additions by Angelicas1216 in the article on Polymyxin drugs.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Angelicas1216


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Angelicas1216/Polymyxin
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polymyxin&diff=prev&oldid=1204646677:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polymyxin&diff=prev&oldid=1204646677:

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

While the lead has not been updated to consider the inclusion of the addition to the article. It is concise and explains enough about the subject to not be hindered by the inclusion. The lead does a good job of explaining the subject and general topics that will be covered, in this case information about polymyxin.

Content

The addition to the article is relevant as polymyxin is a drug and the addition details the composition of the drug as it is administered. I like the inclusion because it adds an aspect to the article that was previously missing in that there was no inclusion about the formulation of the drugs. The content appears to be up to date and all seem to be cohesively giving an explanation of what polymyxin is as a drug. That being said, it could benefit from the inclusion of more information. Such as some explanation as to how the drug came to be discovered or known, more information on the other polymyxin drugs, as there seems to be a focus on polymyxin B.

Tone and Balance

There seems to be a good degree of formality in the presentation of this article. The articles tone is not one of persuasion, it is objective and maintains this objectivity in the presentation of the information.

Sources and References

The new content is backed up appropriately by the sources chosen, as well as the sources being peer reviewed and reliable. The articles chosen are also recent and up to date in their information. The links do work, yet for the sandbox draft, the sources need to have their dates manually inputted so this is something that needs to be ensure in the final submission.

Organization

The article is well organized, the addition to the article is going to leave a good conclusion to the article yet the inclusion improves the understanding of the subject so it is something that is fine.

Images

The images used in the article are well presented and their application into the rest of the article.

Overall impression

My impression of the article is good. The inclusion to the article allows for more information of the topic that seems to be validated by different sources, which is a good sign for any inclusion to the article. The articles do not appear to be primary sources and instead are reviewed thus we can say they are trustworthy along with this the included sections are interesting.