User:Aidenward/Behavioral endocrinology/Olrogers 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, Daniypink
 * 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 leading paragraph provides information regarding what behavioral endocrinology is along with the importance of studying behavioral endocrinology. However, it would be beneficial for the leading paragraph to present the concepts of the subsequent article sections in a concise manner.

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 content is presented logically and the outline presents information relative to the topic. Some of the sections are not elaborated on but I would assume they are still in the process of working on this since this is a rough draft.

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
This draft presents a neutral tone and approaches behavioral endocrinology in an unopinionated academic manner. The information is balanced and does not clearly favor one topic over another.

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
The information presented comes from reliable secondary sources. The sources are thorough and present ample information regarding the concept. The links bring the reader to the correct pages. The only suggestion I have is to try and find more current sources if this is a concept that has evolved quickly (see reference 1 from 1992).

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
This draft is well-written and well-organized. There aren't any errors in grammar or spelling.

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
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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
This addition of this information to the wiki page would benefit the viewers visiting the page. The information is presented in a thorough way and is well explained. The only section that could be explained more thoroughly are History and As a profession since those two are lacking the same attention to detail presented in the previous paragraphs.

response
Thank you for your review, I agree that we need to expand on the history and as a profession sections.