User:Ayaa7/Neo-organ/Mnm894 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ayaa7


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ayaa7/Neo-organ


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-organ

Lead

 * For your lead/introduction, I like how you take note of the etymology of the work by mentioning the Greek origin (on that note, I think Greek should be capitalized).
 * I think this sentence, "These two words together represent an advancement in medicine and technology" probably shouldn't be included? I'm not too sure maybe it's the wording for some reason but it seems more like a personal opinion/description. Maybe reword and say something along the lines of "Hence, the term neo-organ, or "new organ", alludes to a newly created/produced organ that can be deemed an advancement in the fields of medicine and technology" or maybe I'm being picky...
 * I like how you mention the complications that arise with the traditional process of transplantation. If you want to add more, maybe you can cite sources or see if there was an event that triggered the need for neo-organs (for example, let's say there was some disease that affected the kidneys and all of a sudden people needed kidneys). Or if not an event, maybe there was a motive why the first researchers of neo-organ wanted to make this possible.

Content

 * "This surgery was very successful and the patient has shown no signs of rejection." Maybe you can cite this
 * "However, new studies have come out that discuss and conduct research on the process of 3-D printing organs. " maybe add a citation for a research article or two (no need to describe in depth what they are, just adding the citations should be sufficient I think).
 * Overall, your content goes through the main points (first event, different processes, complications, and implications). Nothing really to change about this.
 * If you do want to go in depth and add more stuff, you can talk about research on complications, research on 3-D printed organs (you can get some info here 3D bioprinting), and maybe any post studies done on people that have had neo-organs transplanted and are being examined for a follow up.

Tone and Balance

 * Overall neutral tone, except for maybe that one thing I pointed out in the Lead (but then again that just might be me being picky)
 * Can't say I really pinpointed anything out of the ordinary that's not neutral.

Sources and References

 * All good here, except for maybe those few sentences in the content I pointed out that might need citations

Organization

 * Lead and content follow a logical order, just in the actual article give it headings like Background/History, Research, Implications, Etc
 * Might also consider adding a See also section linking to Wikipedia pages related to your topic. (see: Dermal equivalent)

Images

 * This might be hard to find since I'm personally also having trouble with it but if you can't find any images through Wikipedia of a neo-organ, maybe at the part where you talk about 3d printing you can include a picture of a 3d bioprinter

Overall Commentary

 * Overall, I liked it (especially since it's kind of related to my article Dermal equivalent, or "neodermis").
 * One suggestion I can give that's not really important, but throughout the article you can link words to other Wikipedia pages. For example, when highlighting the word ex vivo and selecting the link button on top, it'll let you link to the Wiki page, so it's easy to go back and forth between relevant topics that the reader may not know about.
 * So if you hover over the ex vivo in that bullet and click on it, it should take you to the ex vivo page.
 * No grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed.