User:Andrianicole1/Opioid use disorder/Bilalabualrub 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? Andrianicole1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Opioid use disorder

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is an appropriate length for a well developed article, the information is pertinent

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes but information is vague and opinionated
 * Is the content added up-to-date? pretty well known already, nothing novel really added
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no apparent content gap, in the article, it is pretty thorough

Content evaluation
No apparent content holes in the article, content added is not really adding anything supportive to the article

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? no
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? fairly yes
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? not in the existing article
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? potentially, towards the dangers of opioid addiction

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone can be more withdrawn/neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes, published within the last 5 years
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are reliable

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? needs to be more specific and empirically based, i.e. talking about study findings rather than opinionated sentences about the dangers of opioids
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? no

Organization evaluation
I would assume this content is supposed to be added to the lead for further background but I am not sure if that is where it is intended to go

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


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

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
The content added needs more development, specification, and less bias so that is can be useful to the main points of the article

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? not at the moment
 * What are the strengths of the content added? the content points out important aspects of opioids and why they are addictive
 * How can the content added be improved? fix typos, speak more specifically about mechanisms of action of opioids rather than saying things like "they work on nerves", i.e. what receptors do they act on? does addiction change physiology of the brain?

Overall evaluation
The content added is a good start in the direction of adding background about opioids, but it needs to be written in a more empirical manner (as mentioned above), with more details from the sources listed - this will add more value the article