User:Zejn0120/Mimosa pudica/BI496Editor Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zejn0120


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Zejn0120/Mimosa pudica
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mimosa pudica

Evaluate the drafted changes
A total of 6 references from 2012 to 2021 have been used. This peer review is about Zejn0120’s Wikipedia article on Mimosa pudica. This Wikipedia article meets basic assignment requirements like 1 copyright-free image, 3 peer-reviewed articles, and the 500-word threshold due to the article’s 525-word count. A whole section on “Anti-microbial properties” was added to the already published article.

Lead
The lead does a great job at being updated to reflect the new content added which is the anti-microbial properties of the herb called Mimosa pudica. Concerning the introductory sentence, some room for improvement seems to be the case in terms of making the introductory sentence more stronger and informative about the herb and the anti-microbial properties being discussed. While the lead seems to be good, it does seem to lack the inclusion of a brief description of the article's major sections such as "Taxonomy," "Description," and "Plant movement." Some editing notes (ordered from start to end): remove "own" and correct "defence" to defense, correct "to use" to used, correct "antidepressants" to an anti-depressant, correct "damage in" to damage to, and lastly make sure to improve the grammar by adding commas before "and" where necessary. Also, add hyphens after anti each time you use it as shown and corrected earlier in the previous sentence.

Content
The content added seems to be up-to-date and does a good job at dividing the topic into 2 sub-headings called "Anti-bacterial benefits," and "Anti-fungal benefits.” While most of the content seems to be up-to-date, it may be noted that most of the references used are nearly a decade old with only 1 of the 6 references being fairly recent as of 2021. Due to the comprehensive nature of the content provided, very little to no content seems to be missing as the article goes into sufficient depth. The image added is identical and replicative to the published article and may be improved by a different and more focused replacement image. Some editing notes (ordered from start to end): correct "that provide" to provide, correct "in surgeries" to surgeries, correct "zone" to a zone, correct “showed high” to showed a high, correct “than leave” to than the leave, and improve the grammar by adding commas before "and" where necessary.

Tone and Balance
The content seems to have a positive tone and language. The author mentions the benefits of Mimosa pudica extract in an informative manner, which tries to showcase an absence of bias when there actually is one in terms of not mentioning the associated side effects that may come packaged along with the benefits that the article strives to highlight. The viewpoint seen throughout the article seems to view the herb in a positive way while completely foreseeing unfavorable side effects that may accompany all the benefits being mentioned. Due to the article’s utilization of informative and descriptive means of expression, it may not come off as highly persuasive. Additionally, even though these means of expression may seem unpersuasive at first; if more research is done then some side effects may be found. Hence, a persuasion is felt toward the positive effects of the herb by leaving out potential side effects like drowsiness, dizziness, heartburn, nausea, headaches, and insomnia.

Sources and References
A total of 6 references from 2012 to 2021 have been used in the article reviewed. The new content seems to be backed up by a reliable peer-reviewed secondary source of information. Reference number 3 leads to a very short article which may not provide sufficient information or a thorough analysis due to its short length of less than a single page. This referenced article also seems to be missing an abstract so it may be better to replace it or omit it altogether. Most of the sources do not appear current or fairly recent. As previously mentioned, the oldest literature is more than a decade old. It may be crucial to use newer literature like the 2021 literature used as science is a rapidly evolving field. The references seem to be working and accessible; however, they are listed twice which may be fixed by removing the duplicated list of references.