User:Donnarahgoshay/Cationic liposome/BattIe5tar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Donnarahgoshay)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donnarahgoshay/Cationic_liposome?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cationic liposome

Lead
The lead is nice and concise while also giving a good background on the topic. The figure you added is also great, it's a great visual representation of the topic. The only thing I would add is a couple of sentences describing the main sections of the article, such as a history, delivery mechanism. etc.

History
This section looks really good, concise and gives a good description of the history of the liposome. One thing I would like to know more about would be about what difference there is between the cationic lipids and the liposomes.

Composition
I really liked the second half of this explanation, as it was easy to read and understand. The first couple of sentences are a bit jargon-heavy, so adding a bit of supporting explanation and maybe separating the section into two paragraphs would make it more digestible.

Formation of cationic liposomes for gene delivery
This section is a bit short, and I feel that a couple terms could be expanded on more. For example, I would like to know how the aggregated vesicles affect gene delivery, and what does the nucleic acid encapsulation actually do to change the liposomes.

Delivery mechanism
For the second part, I would add a short explanation of what in vivo means.

Issues in vivo
These are good points for the issue, but I feel that this section is also a bit too short. More explanations on the cytotoxic effects, opsonization, and protein corona would be nice. Also, I'm not sure how the second sentence is an issue for cytotoxicity. In the last sentence, how does changing the biological identity of the proteins become an issue? Is it a similar effect to protein denaturing?

Overall, I think this is a solid article, it just needs to be a bit more fleshed out. I did notice that you used your first and second sources several times in the article, so finding a secondary source for those would help a lot. -Brant