User:Mnm894/Dermal equivalent/Aspezikian Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Melanie-@Mnm894


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Dermal equivalent

Link to previous draft
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dermal_equivalent&oldid=940153536

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Melanie! Here's my peer review for you,

Lead


 * 1) Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? A new lead has not been fully edited. It may be an area that requires more focus on editing.
 * 2) For example, I recommend rephrasing these sentences in the Lead in order to make the article flow more and introduce these alterantives more conscisely. "This collagen gel contraction assay may be used to screen for treatments which promote or inhibit contraction and thus affect the development of a scar. Other cell types may be incorporated into the dermal equivalent to increase the complexity of the model. For example, keratinocytes may be seeded on the surface to create a skin equivalent, or macrophages may be incorporated to model the inflammatory phase of wound healing."
 * 3) Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introduction sentence is very clear, and i do not recommend editing it.
 * 4) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, I recommend adding one sentence on examples of current commercial products in the Lead and when it was first developed.
 * 5) Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, only introducing background of dermal equivalents is not sufficent in this article. I recommend creating a section within the "purpose" section discussing on what consists of a dermal equivalent.
 * 6) Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise, but it does require edits in sentence phrasing and include example of current products in one sentence.

Content


 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, adding history, purpose, and commercial applications with new citations in the article is very relevant. I think the "purpose" section requires more depth of what consists of a dermal equivalent and its design. Maybe focus on general medical applications and design? Or leave a note in the talk page since this is new technology and requires further research for additional information to be added.
 * 2) Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes many of the articles you've added into the article are fairly new (from the 2000's). However, I do see articles from the 1980s but i don't think it's an issue since it is cited in the "history" section
 * 3) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -I think adding more specifics for each commercial product is necessary to make this article more concise. Also, I think adding a "risks" section is helpful and you could integrate more sources. Also, as said before, adding more depth in the "purpose" section is necessary to imporve overall quality of article.
 * 4) Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, it addresses tissue engineering, which is a fairly new research development. I think addressing its regenerative applications more clearly would make this article more stronger.

Tone and Balance


 * 1) Is the content added neutral? - yes, I see no signs of tone, which is integral in a biotechnology article.
 * 2) Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all. Great job in keeping article informative and neutral
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?-I think a viewpoint on risks of dermal equivalents is missing.

Sources and References


 * 1) Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, every sentence is backed up by a reliable secondary source. Also, great job in using only research publications and journals!
 * 2) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - I think you did a great job in finding thorough sources. I recommend looking in the footnote section of the sources you already cited in editing this article to find more information.
 * 3) Are the sources current? - Yes, many of the articles you've added into the article are fairly new (from the 2000's). However, I do see articles from the 1980s but i don't think it's an issue since it is cited in the history section
 * 4) Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - I dont think this is a concern since this is a medical biotechnology article.
 * 5) 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.) - I do not see any use of news articles. I think you did a great job in only using peer-reviewed articiles. The only recommendation I have is using cited resources from the articles you cited in order to find more relevant information to expand your article.

Organization


 * 1) Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it easy to read. I think some sentence rephrasing and restructure is needed for the Lead that was not edited.
 * 2) Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Here are some segments that I think could use fixing, just my suggestions:
 * 3) -does not flow with the introducing sentence. try rephrasing or add sentences to introduce these points : "It is constructed by seeding dermal fibroblasts into a collagen gel. This gel may then be allowed to contract as a model of wound contraction. This collagen gel contraction assay may be used to screen for treatments which promote or inhibit contraction and thus affect the development of a scar. Other cell types may be incorporated into the dermal equivalent to increase the complexity of the model. For example, keratinocytes may be seeded on the surface to create a skin equivalent, or macrophages may be incorporated to model the inflammatory phase of wound healing."
 * 4) -could be one or two sentence instead of 3 and the first sentence needs some rephasing since it does not flow: "Years later, Integra artificial skin, which is now called Integra Dermal Regeneration Template (IDRT) by Integra LifeSciences, was developed from Burke et al.'s innovation. It became the first commercial product approved by the FDA for dermal replacements and listed as one of the "Significant Medical Device Breakthroughs" in 1996. The primary use of Integra was to treat burn victims."
 * -: should probably include their first names or say "scholars" in replace of "others"- "Afterwards, in 1981, bilayer artificial skin or dermal graft was developed by John F. Burke and others, which was successful in covering “physiologically close to 60% of the body surface.”
 * 1) - sentence is too long and confusing, I recommend making into 2 sentences somehow- "The development of artificial skin and dermis began in the 20th century as the first discovery of the ability to isolate and culture cells in vitro was in 1907 by American embryologist Ross Granville Harrison when he was able to isolate and grow embryonic tissues from frogs in his laboratory."
 * 2) Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, it's broken down into sections/general headings and then with specific details. I recommend using subheaders in the "purpose" section when adding more relevant information.

Overall impressions


 * 1) 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? - Yes, content added highly imporved overall quality of article and it is "more complete". I thinking maybe concentrating on general medical purposes and design of dermal equivalent is need, but I understand that could be difficult since it is a new technology. I think linking to safety concerns or concerns of predecessors of dermal equivalent could improve article's overall quality. Maybe expand on purpose and the specific commercial products added?
 * 2) What are the strengths of the content added? Adding the "history" and "commercial applications"section was really key, it's a really central point to dermal equivalents and I'm surprised it wasn't included already so that's awesome that you did! :)

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? You have 13 sources so far which is great!
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Definitely, It is really awesome to see applications of biotechnology within tissue engineering.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes.
 * 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? As said before, I think addressing the more general medical design of dermal equivalents is key in advancing this topic.

-Ashley