User:Aidenward/Behavioral endocrinology/Dradtke17 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Aidenward
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aidenward/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
'''The lead section is brief but comprehensive of what is included in the rest of the article. However, the second sentence regarding evolutionary past seems out of place.'''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
'''The added content is relevant to the topic. Most of the sources are from 2019 so the information is likely up-to-date.'''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
'''The added content is neutral and he does not seem to have any bias towards one position or another. He does not appear to make any real claims but instead just provides factual information about different hormones and organs for the most part.'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'''All of the information added is backed up by sources. I checked most of the sources and they are working. As I mentioned earlier, most of his sources are from 2019 so they are current. The information included from older sources is well established in the literature.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
'''The added content is easy to read and understand without any noticeable grammar or spelling errors. The content is organized well into sections that the reader can navigate through.'''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images or media were included so far.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
'''I believe that the added content improves the quality of the article. The added sections make the topic easier to understand as a whole. Aiden included new sections into the article that are relevant but not included in the original article. The lead section might require changes regarding its relevance but overall the added changes make the article stronger.'''

Response
Thank you for your review, I agree that the intro could use a bit of work to reflect the changes we have made to the article.