Talk:Nanoparticles for drug delivery to the brain

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

some parts are pretty technical, but I don't think there is much of a way around it. You've done a good job trying to keep it simple enough to understand.

4. Refs: 2

try and add in the doi and pubmed ID numbers to your references if you can

5. Links: 1

I think you could stand to add more links just to make sure if something is not understood by the reader they immediately have a resource to look at

6. Responsive to comments: 2?

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing:1

Under "background" I'm not sure what "range in size from 10 = 1000 nm (or 1 µm)" is supposed to mean. Is the "=" supposed to be a "-"?

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

I'm not really sure how to make it "outstanding". Maybe add more pictures or diagrams of the nanoparticles or delivery methods?

Total: 17 out of 20

Comments:

I would consider making the caption on the liposome figure a little more detailed
I'm guessing that you are still working on the "research" section. If you can't make a separate section out of it, I think where you've mentioned current research in other parts of the article is fine. And then you can just add sentences where relevant about research as you continue to work on the article.
It's looking really good so far!

Anna Tadsen (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keval Tilva Peer Review

1. Quality of Information: 2

Has up to date sources and encyclopedic information.

2. Article size: 2

Was between 15k and 25k when uploaded

3. Readability: 2

The sections talking about the biochemistry of the drugs and their creation is very technical without explaining how it has its effect the BBB. Maybe try to say how certain chemical properties, functional groups make a difference and explain the fundamental mechanisms of their action and link other articles.

4. Refs: 1

All your references are reviews and journals. Can you find some text book information on the biochemistry/mechanisms of action for the drugs.

5. Links: 1

You did not have very many things linked when you first uploaded, however you fixed them after the previous comments.

6. Responsive to comments: 1

You fixed things based on the first review. However, you did not engage on the talk page.

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing:1

The first draft had some wording issues. You first sentence , "Nanoparticles for drug delivery to the brain provides an innovative and promising method for crossing the blood....." I think it should be "provide" not "provides" because nanoparticles is plural and it is nanoparticles that "provide an innovative and promising...." , not "drug delivery to the brain" . Also your Research section was not finished by the 1st draft deadline, however it is finished now.

Thanks for the advice, I changed the phrasing a little in the first sentence. Andrea Trementozzi (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

It was good, maybe if you made an original artwork/media file for the page it would be a 2.

I will look into possibly adding an original image file, but in the meantime I added an image that shows different methods of transport across the BBB, which I believe enhances the "mechanisms" section. Andrea Trementozzi (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total: 16 out of 20 Keval tilva (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Andrea Trementozzi (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Information: 2
Detailed facts and up-to-date content.
Article size: 2
About 17, 506 bytes.
Readability: 1
I thought it was a little difficult for a lay person to understand but there were lots of links.
Refs: 2
Had enough recent sources and has atleast 10 articles.
Links: 2
Incorporated links appropriately wherever needed.
Responsive to comments: 2
Has responded to the peer reviews.
Formatting: 2
Well-Formatted
Writing: 1
Grammar could be improved and jargon could be eliminated.
Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
Username is real name.
Outstanding?: 1
Is reasonably referenced and well-written, but not outstanding.

Total: 17 out of 20 --Angela Mariam Thomas (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited this wikipedia page to correct grammatical errors and improve sentence flow in all of the sections. I have also added an original image that I have created to show Solid Lipid Nanoparticles and their functionalization. I altered some references to make sure all of them showed the appropriate dates. Overall, I made quite a few corrections and edits to this page. Feel free to comment if you have any questions!

Andrea Trementozzi (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]