User:Yuqingli1015/Bispecific monoclonal antibody/Cocomonster0o Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yuqingli1015


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bispecific_monoclonal_antibody&diff=1052900082&oldid=1034395598


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bispecific monoclonal antibody

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


 * The lead has been updated to expand on the definition and has reflected new content added by Yutong. The Lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence that describes the article’s topic, it is not overly detailed, and doesn't present any new information that was not included in the article. However, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article’s major section.

Content


 * The content added to the article is relevant as it pertains to the topic of bispecific monoclonal antibody. The content added is very well up to date as the reference was only published this year, 2021. There doesn't appear any content missing but to improve on the article, I recommend linking different wikipedia articles such as "hybridoma technology" in the article under history, this will help users to understand better and makes it easier to toggle around topics related to bispecific monoclonal antibody (ie. Hybridoma technology instead of just saying hybridoma technology). In addition, it might be helpful to see if there are any related studies from the source you found due to it being relatively new and help strengthen the application section. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral. There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no overrepresented nor underrepresented viewpoints. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position nor away from another. Overall, the content did not reflect any bias when it was written by Yutong.

Sources and References


 * The new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information and are current dating around 10 years ago; however, not all of the sentences include citations. Additionally, the content does appears to reflect what the cited sources say. The sources are from a few different authors and generally covers this article. The links are working.

Organization


 * The content added was clear and easy to read, it was pretty easy to follow and understand, however a room for improvement would be expanding on the application, the paragraph Yutong added was pretty good but would want to maybe touch on it even more and go in depth how BsAbs was able to do that and how is it combined with HRPO, and what is HRPO, maybe linking the wikipedia for that? So, overall, it was pretty good but can be improved by just being a little more detailed on the process of the application. The content is well-organized and broken up into understandable sections and I did not notice any grammar errors or punctation errors.

Images and Media


 * Images were not added by Yutong, thus, this section is irrelevant.

Overall impressions


 * The addition of history and application definitely improves the overall quality of the article and makes the article more complete. The strengths of the content added includes providing a more detailed definition, providing the history behind the development of bispecific monoclonal antibodies, and adding information about on going studies for its application which are all relevant. Although the paper used here is from 2021, there might be other published papers related to it and can help strengthen the application section of the article. Regardless, job well done Yutong.