User:Audrickya29/Transdermal patch/Fernaldy0917 Peer Review


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

WhatisChemistry


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Audrickya29/Transdermal_patch?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Audrick Yang


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Audrickya29/Transdermal patch


 * Hello Audrick, good job making the article appealing. I really like your content and body structure as you have a good flow. I want to point out that your lead sectionn is quite difficult to read and I thinnk is better to split into two paragraph then one big chunk of paragraph. I also really like the pictures you point out and the table you created. In the last paragraph of future developments, maaybe you can add more to this section as it is quite short. remeber to review your article again before submiting, because I read in your application section is quite biased as you state that MNP is an excellent alternative. The safety is quite short tto many expand it by one sentence to make reaaders understand more. Sources and references looks fine. Overall, great job.
 * Lead
 * Lead does reflect the new content
 * The introductory sentence is very clear and concise
 * The lead is overly too detail. Maybe split into two paraagraphs
 * Content
 * The content is relevant to the topic
 * It is up to date
 * Great job on making the content of the article
 * Something to note, I think is better to not start a paragraph by "other than that". I saw this in your noon-soluble or undissolvable MNPs. Also in future developmentt you start by "Because".
 * Tone and balance
 * Most of the article is neutral. But, there are some bias such as "MNPs vaccination might be an excellent alternative from irect injection". You could change by erasing excellent.
 * There might be a little bias and mostly in the application process when you start comparing MNP and direct injection
 * Sources
 * Most of the sources are relevant because they are from research websites
 * The sources are also current
 * the links work
 * Organization
 * The content is well written and clear
 * There are some grammatical errors tthat can be fixed. Start a paragraph without connecting words
 * The article is well organized
 * images
 * The images is very useful in the article
 * Is not copyright
 * It is very appealing and maybe you can add one more image in the application section. just a suggestion
 * Overall impression
 * I'm impressed on how much you expand this article. The contents are very clear and concise. Some paragraphs need a little adjustment because might be bias. Great job.

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.)